Brothers Can Use Their Land After Karnataka HC Quashes 1998 Acquisition Notice, With No Final Notification Issued In 27 Years

In brief

The question

Whether the preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act should be quashed where no final notification under Section 28(4) was issued for 27 years.

The court held

The petition was allowed. The preliminary notification was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioners’ land, and the proposal to acquire that land was declared to have lapsed.

It also directed

Any revenue-record entry showing the name of the State or KIADB was ordered to be deleted, with the petitioners’ names restored forthwith.

Respondents 4 and 5 were granted liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 for failing to take the necessary steps to conclude the acquisition.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of 1 acre 36 guntas in Sy. No. 54/2 (old Sy. No. 54), Thalaguppe village, inherited from their father.

p. 3

The State issued a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), on 19 December 1998, proposing to acquire the land. No final notification under Section 28(4) followed, even after 27 years.

pp. 3–5

The petitioners sought to quash the preliminary notification and have the acquisition declared lapsed. The State and KIADB did not dispute that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification or that similar petitions had resulted in the preliminary notifications being quashed.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the preliminary notification issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act should be quashed where no final notification under Section 28(4) was issued for 27 years.

pp. 3–5, 7

ii.Whether, in these circumstances, the proposal to acquire the petitioners’ land should be declared to have lapsed.

p. 3, 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, which provide for preliminary notification and subsequent final notification in the acquisition process.

pp. 3–4

The Court applied the principle that landowners cannot be kept waiting indefinitely under an uncompleted acquisition proposal and deprived of the use of their land.

p. 7

It noted that similar questions had previously been considered in W.P. Nos. 15416/2023, 12078/2025 and 8400/2021, where preliminary notifications had been quashed.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 28

04Reasoning

The preliminary notification had remained unimplemented since 19 December 1998, and the respondents conceded that no steps had been taken to issue a final notification.

p. 5, 7

Given the prolonged inaction, the Court held that the proposal to acquire the land had not been concluded and that the petitioners could not be kept waiting indefinitely or prevented from using their land.

p. 7

It therefore quashed the notification and declared the acquisition proposal lapsed.

p. 7

05Holding

The petition was allowed. The preliminary notification was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioners’ land, and the proposal to acquire that land was declared to have lapsed.

pp. 6–7

Any revenue-record entry showing the name of the State or KIADB was ordered to be deleted, with the petitioners’ names restored forthwith.

p. 7

Respondents 4 and 5 were granted liberty to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 for failing to take the necessary steps to conclude the acquisition.

p. 7

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF