- Case
- BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (Supreme Court of India, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Land Acquisition Act, National Highways Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act): The judgment discusses Section 28 of the KIAD Act, specifically sub-sections (1) and (2). Sub-section (1) concerns the preliminary notification for acquiring lands for the BMICP, issued by Respondent No. 2 (KIADB). Sub-section (2) pertains to the issuance of notices seeking objections from landowners. The judgment also mentions Section 30 of the KIAD Act, stating that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are applicable mutatis mutandis for determination and award of compensation. The Single Judge observed that the shifting of the date by the SLAOs or the State Government is not legally permissible under the provisions of the KIAD Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The judgment refers to the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("1894 LA Act") mutatis mutandis, as per Section 30 of the KIAD Act, for determining and awarding compensation. It also mentions Section 4 of the 1894 LA Act, specifically sub-section (1), in the context of determining market value of land. Section 6 is mentioned regarding declarations and the validity of acquisition proceedings. Section 11 is mentioned regarding the statutory power of making an award. The Single Judge observed that the market value of the acquired land has to be taken as on the date of the preliminary notification as contemplated under Section 11 of the 1894 LA Act.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The judgment mentions the "2013 LA Act" in the context of determining compensation. It notes the submission that there is no question of awarding compensation under the 2013 LA Act. It also notes that invoking provisions under the 2013 LA Act would entail huge expenditure to the public exchequer.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 32/142, noting that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under these articles to shift the date for determining market value in exceptional circumstances. Article 226 is discussed in relation to the High Court's power to shift the date. Article 300-A is discussed extensively, emphasizing that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law and that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The judgment also notes that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is a constitutional right under Article 300-A.
The National Highways Act, 1956: The judgment refers to Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 ("NH Act"), which contains the power to acquire land for building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway. It also mentions sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 3-A in relation to the notification process and description of land.
