Govt can’t acquire land at cost of poor landowners: Karnataka HC

The High Court bench noted that the object of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) Act is to acquire land for the purpose of setting up industrial areas and not for an individual entity.

Karnataka High Court Photo | Express

BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka has said that acquiring land for a profit-making entity for its expansion would not be in accordance with the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) Act and it is nothing but a fraud committed on statute by the authorities to divest people of their land for a pittance.

This kind of exercise of power is a statutory and constitutional fraud by the authorities, the court said while quashing the land acquired for a parking zone of the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC).

A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf made these remarks on June 3 over acquisition of the land in question for the parking zone of BIEC established by M/s Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers’ Association (IMTMA).

“The entire exercise of acquiring the land in question for IMTMA was vitiated under the constitutional scheme,” the bench said.

Allowing a batch of appeals filed by landowners in 2013 and dismissing appeals filed by KIADB and IMTMA, and setting aside the order passed by a single judge, the bench quashed the land acquisition.

“As no award has been made determining compensation for 14 long years from the date of the final notification, we are of the view that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The state could not have acquired the land for a private entity which is a profitable venture, as is evident from the financial statements mentioned for 4-5 years,” the bench observed.

The bench noted that the object of the Act is to acquire land for the purpose of setting up industrial areas and not for an individual entity. After setting up an industrial area, the government may allot land to an applicant for setting up an industry there.

The government cannot acquire land for an individual entity of its choice at the expense and cost of poor landowners. Acquisition of land or property of individuals in exercise of powers of eminent domain must not be a conveyable exercise or fraud on statute or merely a device to transfer land to private hands, the bench observed.