A 23-year delay in issuing a final notification renders the KIAD acquisition proposal lapsed.

The petitioners challenged a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003, issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”), proposing to acquire their land in Sy. No. 84/1 (old Sy. No. 84), Kodigehalli Village, for the benefit of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

They contended that, despite the passage of approximately 23 years, no final notification had been issued and the acquisition had therefore been abandoned.

The State and KIADB respondents did not dispute that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification; they also acknowledged a similar decision in W.P. No. 11140/2023.

1. Whether the acquisition proposal under the 29 January 2003 preliminary notification had lapsed because no final notification was issued.

2. Whether the preliminary notification should be quashed and the petitioners permitted to use their land.

The Court considered Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act: Section 28(1) provides for preliminary notification of a proposed acquisition, while Section 28(4) concerns the final notification.

The Court applied the principle that landowners cannot be kept indefinitely under an uncompleted acquisition proposal where no steps are taken to issue the final notification.

It noted that a similar question had been addressed in W.P. No. 11140/2023, but did not set out or independently analyse that decision’s reasoning.

The preliminary notification had been issued in 2003, but the State and KIADB respondents accepted that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification.

Given the prolonged inaction, the Court held that the acquisition remained only a proposal and that the petitioners could not be deprived indefinitely of the use of their land.

It therefore treated the acquisition as uncompleted and granted relief by quashing the preliminary notification and declaring the proposal lapsed.

The preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003 was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ land, and the acquisition proposal was declared to have lapsed.

Any revenue-record entry showing respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 was directed to be deleted, and the petitioners’ names restored forthwith.

Respondent No. 5 was left at liberty to proceed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for their failure to take the steps necessary to conclude the acquisition.