Summary
The common question was whether land acquisition for the Karnataka Housing Board under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 is void if begun before any housing scheme exists or is sanctioned under Section 24(2). The Supreme Court held that Mohammed Yousef, decided under the Tamil Nadu Act and explained in L. Krishnan, does not govern the KHB Act. Section 24(1) covers schemes in a sanctioned programme. Section 24(2) lets the Board take up other schemes but bars only their execution without sanction. Section 33(2) attaches no prior-sanction condition to compulsory acquisition and deems acquisition for the Act's purposes to be for a public purpose. Acquisition begun before sanction is valid, but no scheme may be executed until sanctioned. The contrary Division Bench judgment was set aside and the remaining appeals listed on merits.
Issues
- Whether initiating compulsory acquisition under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 without an existing or sanctioned housing scheme makes the acquisition void.
- Whether Mohammed Yousef, decided under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, applies to the Karnataka Act.
- Whether a notification stating only that land is needed for the Board's purposes is too vague to allow effective objections under Section 5A.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1) and (2), Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962Sub-section (1) covers schemes included in the sanctioned and published programme. Sub-section (2) allows other schemes but forbids their execution without the State Government's sanction. It does not require a second sanction or prior sanction before acquisition. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 42, 44)
- Section 33(2), Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962This section empowers compulsory acquisition 'required for the execution' of a scheme in the manner of the Land Acquisition Act as modified. It contains no prior-sanction condition and deems acquisition for the Act's purposes to be for a public purpose. (¶¶ 31, 34, 35, 38, 40)
- Sections 4(1) (Karnataka amendment) and 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The Housing Commissioner was validly empowered to issue the Section 4(1) notification. Stating that the acquisition is for the Board and naming the locality meets the requirement of public purpose and allows Section 5A objections. (¶¶ 36, 37, 41)
Held
- A judgment under one enactment cannot be applied to another without pari materia provisions. L. Krishnan confined Mohammed Yousef to notifications avowedly for executing a framed scheme under the Tamil Nadu Act. The Karnataka question must be decided on the KHB Act and the Land Acquisition Act alone. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 24(2) enables the Board to undertake schemes outside the annual programme, subject to sanction before execution. It does not require a second sanction for programme schemes, and 'execution' means performance or completion, not acquisition. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Section 33(2) contains no express or implied condition that a sanctioned and published scheme must exist before a Section 4(1) notification. Its deeming provision on public purpose makes it enough to state that the land is for the Board's purposes. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Vagueness is a question of fact. A notification stating the Board's purpose and the locality allows effective objections under Section 5A, and in the lead case the landowner had in fact objected. (¶ 41)
- Initiating acquisition under Section 33(2) without an existing or sanctioned scheme does not make the proceedings void. Only execution of a scheme must await sanction under Section 24(2). Section 32 schemes entrusted by the Government are a further reason against any such precondition. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44)
Result
The common question was answered in the negative. The Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 5712 of 2012 was set aside and the landowner's writ petition dismissed. The connected civil appeals were listed for consideration on their own merits.