M/S. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

                    MIS. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD.
                                     v.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

                              APRIL 3, 2003

           [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]                                B


     Land Acquisition:

       Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966--Sections I (3), 2(8),
3(1) and 28(1)-C/aimant in possession of land but his name not mutated in C
revenue records-Acquisition proceedings-Allegation that mandatory
requirement for declaration of industrial area and issuance ofnotice to claimant
not complied with-On appeal held, all processes provided under Section
1(3), 3(1) and 28(8) are accomplished together by publication and failure of
issuance of notices to persons whose name not mutated in records does not D
vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

     Words and Phrases:

      'Notification '-Meaning ofin the context ofsection 2(8) ofthe Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, I 966
                                                                                E
      Appellant purchased a land. However the land was not mutated in
his name in the revenue records. Thereafter the land was acquired for the
purpose of industrial development under preliminary notification dated
3.10.1997, and gazetted on 30.10.1997. Appellant challenged the acquisition
proceedings. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Division Bench           F
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.

      Appellants contended that notification under Section I (3) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was post facto to the
date of preliminary notification under Section 28(1), therefore, the entire
proceedings emanating from Section 28(1) were without any authority of          G
law, void ab initio and non est; that no notice as mandatorily required
under Section 28(2) and thereafter under Section 28(6) were either issued
or served on either the owner of the land or the occupier thereof; and that
an obligation was cast on the registering officer to make a report to the

                                    351                                         H
    352                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2003) 3 S.C.R.
                                                                                    ....,,._
A   revenue authority to enter his name in the record of rights and their failure
    to do so resulting in non-service of the notice on the appellant depriving
    him of the opportunity to file his objections should not act to his detriment
    or disadvantage.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
          HELD: 1. I. The term 'notification' is defined in Section 2(8) of the
   Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 as meaning a
   notification published in the official Gazette. According to Section 28(1)
   if at any time in the opinion of the State Government any land is required
C for the purpose of development by the Board or for any other purpose in
   furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by
   notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. The
   notification referred to in Section 28(1) is the notification published in the
   Official Gazette. Unless and until the notification is published in the
   Official Gazette there is no notification in the eye of law having regard to
D section 2(8). In the instant case, the notification under Section 28(1) was
   published in the Gazette on 30. 10.1997. For all intents and purposes that
   would be the relevant date. The date 3.10.1997 is of no relevance or
   consequence at all. It is seen that the notification dated 20.10.1997 under
   Section 1(3) of the Act applying the provisions of Chapter VII of the land
   in question and the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring
E the area as an industrial area for the purpose of the Act and the
   preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act giving notice of
   its intention to acquire the land for the purpose of development are all
   gazetted on 30. 10. 1997. The validity of acquisition proceedings in regard
   to the notification under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) would be the date
F of their publication in the Official Gazette for the purpose of considering
   the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The notification under Section
   28(1) is not vitiated only on the ground that it bears a date earlier to the
   date of notification under Section 1(3) or it is published simultaneous with
   the notification under Sections I (3) and 3(1) of the Act. In the
   circumstances, there can be no legal objection in all the three processes
G provided under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the Act being accomplished
   together by publication, on which only the exercise of power could be said
   to have been made. The simultaneous issue of the three notifications
   therefore, docs not constitute a flaw much less one which can render the
  ·acquisition proceedings legally bad or void. 1357-D-H; 358-F)
H
                   AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE                        353
      1.2. The question of exercise of power under Section 28(1) of the Act,     A
arise at the stage when it chooses to given notice of its intention to acquire
such land and not before. The mere opinion formed without there being
the further expression of intention to acquire is of no significance or
purpose. Hence the relevant point of time when alone the power under
Section 28(1) can be said to have been invoked is the point of time when         B
the intention to acquire the same is to be exercised by issuing the
notification for publication. (358-D-EI

      1.3. Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name entered in the
revenue records as owner or occupant of the said land and, therefore, he
could not complain about non-service of notice on him nor about the              C
failure to grant a hearing to him. The submission that as per provision of
Land Revenue Act there was no obligation on his part to either inform
the revenue authorities about the sale in his favour or to request them to
transfer the katha in his name is rejected as it has not been brought on
record with reference to any pleadings with supporting documents that
in fact the appellant had made payment for making the necessary entries          D
in the record of rights and the register in his name at the time of
registration of the sale deed in his favour. This apart failure to make
entries on the part of the revenue authorities by itself would not cast any
obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and
try to locate an owner who may have subsequently purchased the land              E
from the previous owner. Failure on the part of the revenue authority to
make entry in the register of mutation in favour of the subsequent owner
would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of
non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings
or service thereof. (360-A-Df
                                                                                 F
      Winky Dilawari (Sm/. ) and Anr. v. Amritsar Improvement Trust,
Amritsar, (1996( I I SCC 644 and W. B. Housing Board and Ors. v. Brijendra
Prasad Gupta and Ors., (1997( 6 SCC 207, relied on.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8328 of 200 I.
                                                                                 G
     From the Judgment and Order dated I. 2. 200 I of the Karnataka High
Court in W. A. No. 570 of 2001 (LA-KIADB)

     R. F. Nariman, L. Naheshwara Rao, V. A. Mohta, Kavin Gulati, Ms.
Jasmine Damkewala, Ms. Nandini Gore, R. N. Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik
Karanjawala, Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Ms. Kiran Suri, S. Sukumkaran,        H
    354                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2003) 3 S.C.R.

A Ms. Divya Nljir and V. K. Sidharthan for the appearing parties.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           BHAN, J. The instant appeal seeks to assail the judgment and order
    dated 1st February, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka
B   High Court in Writ Appeal No. 570 of 200 I, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
    impugned order") upholding the order of the Single Judge in dismissing the
    writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition proceedings
    initiated under the The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
    (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") including Survey No. 6 (with which the
C   appellant is concerned) measuring I acre 30 guntas. The appellant is aggrieved
    not only with the acquisition proceedings but also with the manner in which
    the acquisition proceedings have been commenced and proceeded with under
    the Act. According to him the mandatory requirements for the declaration of
    the industrial area as well as issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant
    to file objections have not been complied with.
D
          Before adverting to the points raised in this appeal it would be necessary
    to enumerate the basic facts, which are as under:

          On 10th February, 1993 appellant purchased land ad-measuring I acre
    30 guntas bearing Survey No. 6 by registered sale deed located at Krishna
E   Sagar village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District from
    Khujam and Rahmath Shariff. According to the appellant he was put in
    possession of the said land from the date of sale. However, his name was not
    shown in the revenue record as the land had not been mutated in his name
    in the record. The name of one Jacop who had sold the land to the Vendor
    of the appellant is shown in the revenue record.
F
           The said land and surrounding lands were acquired for the purpose of
    industrial development under preliminary notification dated 3rd October, 1997
    (Gazetted on 30th October, 1997) issued under Section 28 (I) of the Act and
    final declaration dated 2 lst April, 1998 (Gazetted on 23rd April, 1998) issued
G   under Section 28 (4) of the Act.

           Appellant being aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings filed the writ
    petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge by his
    order dated 21st November, 2000. The writ appeal against the said order has
    been dismissed by the impugned order.
H
                 AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE [BHAN, J.)                    355
          Section I of the Act gives the short title, extent and commencement of A
    the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (3) of Section I stipulates that the Act
    shall come into force at once, except Chapter VII, which shall come into
    for~e in such areas and from such date as the State Government may by
'   notification specify in that behalf. Section 27 of Chapter VII literally
    reproduces the said provisions and states that the provisions of the said Chapter B
J   shall apply to such areas and from such dates as may be notified by the State
    Government under sub-section (3) of Section I. Section 3 relates to declaration
    of industrial areas and empowers the State Government to declare any area
    in the State to be an industrial area for purposes of the Act. Section 28 (I)
    empowers the State Government to give notice of its intention to acquire
    such land as may in its opinion be required for the purposes of development C
    by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act.
    Section 28 (2) requires on publication of a notification in subsection (I), that
    the State Government shall serve 'notice upon the owner or where the owner
    is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons
    known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days
    from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired. D
    Sub-clause (3) provides that after considering the cause, if any, shown by the
    owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving
    such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government
    may pass such orders as it deems fit. Section 28(4) provides that after passing
    of the orders under sub-section (3) where the State Government is satisfied E
    that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the not.ification
    issued under sub-section (I), can issue a declaration by issuing a notification
    in the official Gazettee made to that effect. Sub-section (5) provides that on
    the publication in the Official Gazettee of the declaration under sub-section
    (4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all
    encumbrances. Under sub-section (6) the State Government can call upon by F
    issuing a notice in writing requiring the person in possession of the land to
    surrender or deliver the possession ·withih 30 days of the service of the
    notice. Sub-section (7) provides that if any person refuses or fails to comply
    with the order then the State Government or any other officer in this behalf
    may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as G
    may be necessary. Section 29 provides for payment of compensation and
    Section 30 makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable
    mutatis mutandis in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy
    Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of compensation
    and the payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired under Chapter
     VII.                                                                             H
    356                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A        Counsel for the appellant raised two points in this appeal. Firstly, that
  Chapter VII under which the acquisition proce.edings have been initiated
  apply to such areas from such date as may be notified by the State Government
  under Sub-section (3) of Section I. In view of the mandate of Section 27, the
  acquisition proceedings under Section 28 could only be initiated after "Chapter
  VII comes into force" which can only be by way of a notification under
B Section 1 (3) of the Act. In this case the notification under Section I (3)
  being subsequent to the date of the notification under Section 28 (I) of the
  Act, namely, that while the preliminary n.otification under Section 28 (1) of
  the Act was prepared on 3rd October, 1997 (published in the Gazette on 30th
  October, 1997), the notification under Sectio~ 1(3) bringing into force Chapter
C VII of the Act was issued on 20th October, 1997 (published in the Gazette
  on 30th October, 1997) was post facto to the date of preliminary notification
  and therefore, the entire proceedings emanating from Section 28 (I) of the
  Act were without any authority of law, void ab initio and non-est. Secondly,
  it was submitted that no notice as mandatorily required under Section 28 (2)
  and thereafter under Section 28 (6) of the Act were either issued or served
D on either the owner of the land or the occupier thereof and if that be so the
  proceedings for acquisition of the land stood vitiated for non-compliance
  with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice.
  According to him the want of service of notice to the appellant goes to the
  very root of the maintainability of the acquisition proceedings and therefore
E the proceedings of acquisition of land in so far as it concerns the appellant
  ought to have been quashed by the High Court. He also referred to the
  provisions of Sections 127, 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
  1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Revenue Act") which provides for
  the preparation of the record of rights. Section 128 (I) of this Act provides
  that a person on acquisition of rights by any mode is required to report orally
F or in writing of acquisition of proprietary rights to the prescribed officer of
  the village within three months of the acquisition of the said right and the
  said officer is required to give a written acknowledgement of the receipt of
  the report to the person making it. Under a proviso to this Section the person
  acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document is exempted from the
G obligation to report to the prescribed officer for making the necessary entries
  in his favour in the record of rights because sub-Section 4 provides that no
  document shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless
  the person liable to pay the registration fee also pays to the registering authority
  such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in the record
  of rights and registers referred to in Section 129. On the. registration of such
H a document, the registering authority is required to make a report of the              -·
             AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE [BHAN, J.]                    357
acquisition of the rights to the prescribed officer. The prescribed officer      A
under Section 129 is required to enter in the register of mutations every
report made to him under sub-Section (I) of Section 128 or received by him
under sub-section (2) or sub-Section (4) of the said Section. Relying upon
these provisions of the Land Revenue Act it is contended that an obligation
was cast on the registering officer to make a report to the revenue authority    B
to enter his name in the record of rights and their failure to do so resulting
in non-service of the notice on the appellant depriving him of the opportunity
to file his objections should not act to his detriment or disadvantage.

      Counsel appearing for the respondents countered the arguments with
reference to the record and the findings recorded by the High Court, contended   C
that there was no illegality attached to the acquisition proceedings.

       We do not find substance in either of the points raised by the counsel
for the appellants. The tenn 'notification' is defined in Section 2(8) as meaning
a notification published in the official Gazette. According to Section 28 ( 1)
if at any time in the opinion of the State Government any land is required for D
the purpose of development by the Board or for any other purpose in
furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by
notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land. In view of the
definition of the term notification.; the notification referred to in Section 28
(I) is the notification published in the Official Gazette. Unless and until the
notification is published in the Official Gazette there is no notification in the E
eye of law having regard to section 2 (8). In the present case the notification
under Section 28 (I) was published in the Gazette on 30th October, 1997. For
all intents and purposes that would be the relevant date. The date 3rd October,
 I997 mentioned in the notification is of no relevance or consequence at all.
It is seen that the notification dated 20th October, 1997 under Section 1 (3) p
of the Act applying the provisions of Chapter Vil of the land in question and
the notification under Section 3 (I) of the Act declaring the area as an
industrial area for the purpose of the Act and the preliminary notification
under Section 28 (I) of the Act giving .notice of its intention to acquire the
land for the purpose of development are all gazetted on 30th October, 1997.
The validity of acquisition proceedings in regard to the notification under G
Sections I (3), 3(1) and 28 (1) would be the date of their publication in the
Official Gazette for the purpose of considering the validity of the acquisition
proceedings. The notification under Section 28 (I) is not vitiated only on the
ground that it bears a date earlier to the date of notification under Section
 1(3) or it is published simultaneous with the notification under Sections I (3) H
    358                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A and 3 (I) of the Act. While it is true that an occasion for the Government to
    exercise powers under Section 28( I) may generally arise after an area has
    been notified as an industrial area, yet the Scheme underlying the Act does
    not exclude a situation in which the Government may perform all the three
    functions simultaneously. If the Government, on the basis of material, survey
B   and study conducted by its agencies is of the opinion that a given area is
    suitable for acquisition, then, for purpose of furtherance of the objects of the
    Act, it can extend the provisions of the Act to the said area, constituting the
    same as an' industrial area under Section 3( I) and notify its intention to
    acquire under Section 28 simultaneously as well.

C          Reading· of Section 28 (I) indicates that if at any time the State
    Government is of the opinion that the land in question is required for the
    purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance
    of the objects of the Act, the State Government may by notification give
    notice of its intention to acquire fresh land. The question of exercise of
    power under Section 28 (I) of the Act, arise at the stage when it chooses to
D   give notice of its intention to acquire such land and not before. The mere
    opinion formed without there being the further expression of intention to
    acquire is of no significance or purpose. Hence, the relevant point of time
    when alone the power under Section 28 (I) can be said to have been invoked
    is the point of time when the intention to acquire the same is to be exercised
E   by issuing the notification for publication. f:!y this point of time indisputably
    in the present case Chapter VII had been brought into force.

         In the circumstances, there can be no legal objection in all the three
  processes provided under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28 (I) of the Act being
  accomplished together by publication, on which only the exercise of power
F could, be said to have been made. The simultaneous issue of the three
  notifications therefore does not constitute a flaw much less one which can
  render the acquisition proceedings legally bad or void. We have, therefore,
  no hesitation in rejecting the first contention raised by the counsel for the
  appellant.

G        Admittedly, the appellant's name is not reflected as owner or occupier
  of the land in the revenue record. It is also not in dispute that no notice was
  issued to the appellant under Section 28 (3) of the Act. Appellant did not get
  his name entered in the revenue records in pursuance to the sale in his favour,
  the question of serving of any notice on him under the circumstances did not
H arise. Respondents have produced RTC extracts for the year 1995-96 as
--                AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE [BHAN, J.)                       359

     Annexure R-1 and the notice issued to the notified Kathedar under Section            A
     28 (2) of the Act as Annexure R2. The persons named therein as owners/
     occupants of Survey No. 6 have been shown as owners/occupants in the
     preliminary notification as well. Notices were issued/served on the owners/
     occupants as per the revenue records or their representatives.

            This Court in Winky Dilawari (Smt.) and Anr. v. Amritsar lmprovemem'          B
     Trust, Amritsar, [ 1996] 11 SCC 644, has taken the view that failure to serve:
     personal notices on the persons whose names have not been mutated in the
     official record of rights in pursuance to any sale in their favour does noft
     vitiate the proceedings for acquisition. Similar view was taken in W. B..
     Housing Board and Ors. v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and Ors., [ 1997] 6 SCC             C
     207, wherein this Court observed:

             " ....... It is no part of the duty of the Collector to make a rovin:g
             inquiry into ownership of the persons. We are of the opinion that die
             requirements of the law were met when notices were served upon the
             recorded owners as per the Record of Rights. Again we do not thin'k          D
             in a case like the present one, it is for the Collector to make enquirie:s
             from the registration office to find out if the land had since been sold
             by the recorded owners. In Winky Dilawari v. Amritsar Improvement
             Trust, (1996) 11 SC 644, this Court observed that the public authorities
             were not expected to go on making enquiries in the Sub-Registrar's
             office as to who would be the owner of the property. The Collect< Jr         E
             in the present case was thus justified in relying on the official record
             being the Record of Rights as to who were the owners of the larnd
             sought to be requisitioned and prudence did not require any further
             enquiry to be made. We are therefore of the view that notices were
             properly served under Section 3 (2) of the Act on the owners of the          p
             land. "

             It could be seen from the above order that service of notice on a per-son
     shown as owner or occupier in the record of rights is sufficient even thoiugh
     the said person had already sold the land prior to the said notification u11le'ss
     it is substantiated otherwise that the authorities concerned had the know Iedge      G
     of the rights or interest of any person other than those found record•ed a.s
     owner/occupier in the Revenue Records. It is further held that the Collector·
     is not obliged to make a roving enquiry about the ownership of the land. If
     the name of the purchaser is not yet entered in the record of rights thf:n non-
     service on such a person does not vitiate the acquisition proce.edings.
                                                                                          JI
                                                                                      -
    360                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name entered in the revenue records
    as owner or occupant of the said land and therefore he could not complain
    about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to grant a hearing
    to him. Contention that as per provision of Land Revenue Act there was no
    obligation on his part to either inform the revenue authorities about the sale
B   in his favour or to request them to transfer the katha in his name cannot stand
    as it has not been brought on record with reference to any pleadings with
    supporting documents that in fact the appellant had made payment for making
    the necessary entries in the record of rights and the register in his name at
    the time of registration of the sale deed in his favour. This apart failure to
    make entries on the part of the revenue authorities by itself would not cast
C   any obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and
    try to locate an owner who may have subsequently purchased the land from
    the previous owner. Failure on the part of the revenue authority to make
    entry in the register of mutation in favour of the subsequent owner would not
    render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of
    notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.
D
          For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
    and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                                       Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                      ~·