01Facts
The petitioner claimed ownership of specified lands at Hebbadi Village, Mandya District, which were included in a preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), on 3 July 1999 for the Bengaluru–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project.
pp. 3–4He contended that no final notification under Section 28(4) had followed, despite the passage of 27 years, and sought to quash the preliminary notification and have the acquisition declared lapsed.
pp. 3–4The State and KIADB authorities did not dispute that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification or that similar petitions had been allowed.
p. 5Respondent No. 5 sought liberty to proceed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the delay.
p. 502Issues
i.1. Whether the preliminary acquisition notification could remain operative where no final notification had been issued for approximately 27 years.
pp. 3–6ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the acquisition proposal declared lapsed and the preliminary notification quashed.
pp. 3–4, 6–703Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, under which the acquisition process proceeds from a preliminary notification to a final notification.
pp. 3–4It applied the principle that a landowner cannot be kept indefinitely under an acquisition proposal where the authorities have not taken steps to conclude the acquisition; in those circumstances, the proposal remains unconcluded and the landowner may use the land.
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 28
04Reasoning
The Court treated as undisputed that, following the preliminary notification of 3 July 1999, the authorities had taken no steps to issue a final notification.
pp. 5–6Given the prolonged inaction, it held that the petitioner could not be kept waiting indefinitely or deprived of the use of his land. The acquisition therefore remained only a proposal and had not been concluded.
p. 6The Court also noted that similar petitions concerning the same acquisition had been allowed.
pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed. The preliminary notification was quashed insofar as it related to the lands specified in the order, and the proposal to acquire those lands was declared to have lapsed.
pp. 6–7The Court directed that any revenue-record entry in the name of respondent No. 1 or 2 be deleted and the petitioner’s name restored; respondent No. 5 was left at liberty to proceed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for failing to take the necessary steps to conclude the acquisition.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI. K. M. HOMBEGOWDAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
