<p>The difference in degrees of ownership between ‘granted land’ and ‘private land’ will assume significance while adjudging the acquisition of granted land by the government, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled. </p>.<p>The court added that though there is no difference when it comes to payment of compensation, the level of resistance to acquisition of a ‘granted land’ cannot be as high as in the case of acquisition of a ‘private land’. </p>.<p>The court said that although a government grant feeds the title, the law recognises a certain difference between a ‘granted land’ and a ‘private property’. It cannot be disputed that the grantor has retained discretion to rescind the grant on the proven violation of the terms of the grant, the court said. </p>.<p>“This critical difference needs to be kept in mind when grantee of the land lays a challenge to its acquisition heavily banking upon the constitutional guarantee to the private property under Article 300A of the Constitution, more particularly, when the very grant is admittedly subject to certain conditions that diminish the measure of ownership. An argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without turning a Nelson’s Eye to the apparent differences relevant for the classification of persons holding ‘absolute ownership’ and ‘restricted ownership’ over the properties,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said. </p>.<p>The court said this while quashing the petition challenging the fresh acquisition notification issued by the KIADB in respect of two acres of land that was granted. The land forms part of 200 acres in Bagalur for the hardware park, acquired in the 2008 final notification. </p>.<p>In the case at hand, due to some discrepancy, the survey number of the land in question was denotified in 2010 which was rectified through a notification in August 2022. Meanwhile, the KIADB had allotted the land to a software company. The petitioner, B C Lokesh, contended that the acquisition is not for the public purpose but to feed the requirement of a private software company. </p>.<p>While dismissing the petition, the court also noted that the petitioner’s mother had filed a representation in 2013 seeking compensation for the land and KIADB had passed the general award by depositing Rs 3.22 crore in a land acquisition case before the court at<br />Devanahalli. </p>
<p>The difference in degrees of ownership between ‘granted land’ and ‘private land’ will assume significance while adjudging the acquisition of granted land by the government, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled. </p>.<p>The court added that though there is no difference when it comes to payment of compensation, the level of resistance to acquisition of a ‘granted land’ cannot be as high as in the case of acquisition of a ‘private land’. </p>.<p>The court said that although a government grant feeds the title, the law recognises a certain difference between a ‘granted land’ and a ‘private property’. It cannot be disputed that the grantor has retained discretion to rescind the grant on the proven violation of the terms of the grant, the court said. </p>.<p>“This critical difference needs to be kept in mind when grantee of the land lays a challenge to its acquisition heavily banking upon the constitutional guarantee to the private property under Article 300A of the Constitution, more particularly, when the very grant is admittedly subject to certain conditions that diminish the measure of ownership. An argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without turning a Nelson’s Eye to the apparent differences relevant for the classification of persons holding ‘absolute ownership’ and ‘restricted ownership’ over the properties,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said. </p>.<p>The court said this while quashing the petition challenging the fresh acquisition notification issued by the KIADB in respect of two acres of land that was granted. The land forms part of 200 acres in Bagalur for the hardware park, acquired in the 2008 final notification. </p>.<p>In the case at hand, due to some discrepancy, the survey number of the land in question was denotified in 2010 which was rectified through a notification in August 2022. Meanwhile, the KIADB had allotted the land to a software company. The petitioner, B C Lokesh, contended that the acquisition is not for the public purpose but to feed the requirement of a private software company. </p>.<p>While dismissing the petition, the court also noted that the petitioner’s mother had filed a representation in 2013 seeking compensation for the land and KIADB had passed the general award by depositing Rs 3.22 crore in a land acquisition case before the court at<br />Devanahalli. </p>
