In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that irrespective of a decree in favour of the owner, the government was still entitled to issue a notification for acquiring private land.
Issuance of such notification by the authorities even after a decree is granted in favour of the owner would not mean that the action of the government was malafide, a Bench of Justices C K Thakker and Lokeshwar Singh Penta ruled.
The Bench set aside the orders of a single judge and a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, both of which held that issuance of a notification for acquiring a land after it was decreed by a civil court in favour of the owner was illegal and done with a malafide intention to override the decree.
In this case, the Industrial Area Development Board, Karnataka, acquired 120 acres of land of different survey numbers at Devarayapatna for the purpose of establishing a watch factory by HMT, a Government undertaking.
Of the 120 acres, an acre and 38 gunthas of land belonged to the family of one Mudappa.
However, it was alleged by Mudappa that though the family surrendered the acquired land, HMT encroached into 39 gunthas of additional land belonging to the family and was refusing to vacate it.
A trial court decreed that the 39 gunthas of land belonged to the family and, hence, should be returned to it. An appeal filed by HMT was dismissed by the appellate court.
Despite the decree, HMT refused to hand over the land and instead approached the state government with a plea to cquire the disputed land by a fresh notification, forcing the family to move the High Court.
A single judge and later a division bench held that the action of the government in issuing the impugned notification under sub section (1) of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was a malafide exercise of power by the authorities and, hence, struck down the same.
In its appeal before the apex court, HMT, which was supported by the government, argued that the High Court was wrong in holding such a view as the owner cannot approach the court since only a preliminary notification or acquiring the land was issued by the authorities.
It argued that irrespective of a decree by a court, the government has a statutory power to issue such notification and the owners had the right to raise their objections before the appellate authorities.
Counsel for the owner took the stance that the authorities issued the notification under instigation from the HMT, which had decided to defy the decree and the execution orders passed by the civil court.
Upholding the government's contention, the apex court observed, "The power exercised by the state was statutory in nature and irrespective of decree in favour of the owners, such notification could be issued."
The state authorities were not required to produce material for perusal of the court as to expansion of industrial area or development of industry, the bench said.
Issuance of preliminary notification after a decree by a court of law would not ipso facto make it vulnerable to an exercise of malafide power, the bench said while allowing the appeal.
