Facts
The petitioners claimed ownership of 3 acres in Sy. No. 646 at Kesare Village, Mysuru, and relied on a compromise decree dated 4 September 2018 in O.S. No. 400/2013 partitioning the family properties.
Source reference: para. 2(i)–(ii)The land was included in a preliminary acquisition notification dated 3 July 1999 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), for the Bengaluru–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project.
Source reference: para. 2(iii)No final notification under Section 28(4) followed, despite the passage of more than 25 years.
Source reference: paras. 2(iii), 7The petitioners sought to quash the preliminary notification and a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed, relying on the High Court’s order in W.P. No. 5424/2025.
Source reference: paras. 2(iii), 4Issues
Whether the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act should be quashed where no final notification under Section 28(4) had been issued for more than 25 years.
Source reference: paras. 2(iii), 7Whether the proposal to acquire the petitioners’ land had lapsed, entitling them to use the land and have the revenue records restored in their names.
Source reference: paras. 2(iii), 7–8Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act: Section 28(1) provides for preliminary notification of proposed acquisition, while Section 28(4) provides for the subsequent final notification.
Source reference: no citationThe Court also referred to its decision in W.P. No. 5424/2025, where a preliminary notification in a similar matter had been quashed and the land losers permitted to use their land.
Source reference: paras. 2(iii), 4The judgment did not identify a separate statutory limitation period or set out a broader legal test for lapse; it treated the prolonged absence of a final notification in these circumstances as leaving the acquisition proposal unconcluded.
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The respondents did not dispute that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification after the 1999 preliminary notification, or that similar issues had been decided in W.P. No. 5424/2025.
Source reference: para. 4Given the more than 25-year delay, the Court held that the petitioners could not be kept waiting indefinitely or deprived of the use of their land.
Source reference: paras. 4, 7It therefore regarded the acquisition as an uncompleted proposal and applied the approach taken in the earlier case.
Source reference: paras. 4, 7Holding
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the 3 July 1999 preliminary notification insofar as it concerned the petitioners’ land, and declared that the acquisition proposal had lapsed.
It directed that any revenue-record entry in the names of Respondents 1 or 2 be deleted and that the petitioners’ names be restored in accordance with the decree in O.S. No. 400/2013.
Source reference: para. 8(iii)–(iv)Respondent 5 was given liberty to proceed against Respondents 1 and 2 for failing to take the necessary steps to conclude the acquisition within a reasonable time.
Source reference: para. 8(iii)–(iv)Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 19661
Original Court PDF
SRI RAMESHAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
