A decades-old KIAD acquisition proposal lapses when no final notification is issued.

The petitioner purchased one acre in Sy. No. 422 (old Sy. No. 93/P-4), Hebbadi Village, in 2008.

The land was included in a preliminary acquisition notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), on 3 July 1999.

No final notification under Section 28(4) had been issued.

The petitioner sought to quash the preliminary notification insofar as it concerned his land and to have the acquisition declared lapsed.

The State and KIADB respondents did not dispute the absence of a final notification or that similar preliminary notifications had been quashed in other cases.

1. Whether the 1999 preliminary notification could be quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner’s one acre, given that no final notification had been issued

2. Whether the acquisition proposal in respect of that land had lapsed, entitling the petitioner to use the land and have the revenue records restored

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

The Court applied the principle that where the acquisition remains at the proposal stage and the authorities have taken no steps to issue a final notification over an extended period, the landowner cannot be kept waiting indefinitely or deprived of the use of the land.

No judicial precedent was identified in the order as the basis of the decision.

The Court relied on the undisputed facts that the preliminary notification dated 3 July 1999 had not been followed by a final notification and that the authorities had taken no steps to complete the acquisition.

It held that the acquisition therefore remained an uncompleted proposal and that the petitioner could not be kept waiting indefinitely or prevented from using his land.

The Court consequently found the petitioner entitled to relief in respect of the one-acre parcel.

The Court quashed the preliminary notification insofar as it covered the petitioner’s one acre and declared that the proposal to acquire that land had lapsed.

It directed that any revenue-record entries in the names of the State or KIADB be deleted and that the petitioner’s name be restored forthwith.

Respondents 5 and 6 were granted liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 for failing to take steps to conclude the acquisition.