A 26-year failure to issue a final notification leaves the acquisition proposal lapsed.

The petitioner claimed ownership, by inheritance under a Panchayati Partition Deed, of 15½ guntas in Sy. No. 365 at Kamanakerehundi Village, Mysuru District.

A preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), proposing acquisition of the land, was issued on 3 July 1999; no final notification under Section 28(4) had followed, even after 26 years.

The petitioner sought to quash the preliminary notification and have the acquisition declared lapsed.

The State and KIADB respondents did not dispute that no final notification had been issued, and referred to similar relief granted in other writ petitions.

Whether the preliminary acquisition notification could be quashed, and the acquisition proposal declared lapsed, where no final notification had been issued for 26 years.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the revenue entries in respect of the land.

The Court considered Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, under which the acquisition process at issue began with a preliminary notification and contemplated a subsequent final notification.

It applied the principle that a landowner cannot be kept waiting indefinitely where the acquisition remains uncompleted: in the circumstances of this case, the proposal remained only a proposal, and the petitioner was entitled to use the land.

The Court identified no statutory time-limit or precedent as the basis for its decision; it noted, however, that similar writ petitions had resulted in the preliminary notifications being quashed.

The Court relied on the undisputed fact that no final notification had followed the preliminary notification issued in 1999.

Given the 26-year delay, it held that the petitioner could not be kept waiting indefinitely or deprived of the use of the land.

It therefore treated the acquisition as uncompleted and the proposal as having lapsed, and directed consequential correction of the revenue records.

Any revenue entry in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 or 2 was to be deleted and the petitioner’s name restored forthwith; Respondent No. 4 was granted liberty to proceed against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for failing to take steps to conclude the acquisition.