Karnataka HC Quashes KIADB Acquisition Proposal for Widow’s 1.2 Acres After 27 Years Without a Final Notification

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 23/2 and 23/3, Mallasandra Village, which she said she inherited from her husband.

The State had issued preliminary acquisition notifications under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”) on 2 June 1999 and 30 March 2004.

No final notification under Section 28(4) had followed.

The State and KIADB did not dispute that no final notification had been issued or that similar petitions had been allowed.

The Court considered Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, under which the preliminary notifications were issued, and Section 28(4), under which a final notification would be required to conclude the acquisition process.

It applied the principle that a landowner cannot be kept waiting indefinitely where, after preliminary notifications, the authorities have taken no steps to conclude the acquisition; in those circumstances, the acquisition proposal remains uncompleted and the landowner is entitled to use the land.

The Court also noted that similar petitions had been allowed, but did not identify or discuss a separate precedent as the basis for its decision.

The authorities admitted that no final notification had been issued after the preliminary notifications.

Given that inaction and the passage of many years, the Court held that the petitioner could not be deprived indefinitely of the use of her land.

It treated the acquisition as an uncompleted proposal and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to use the land for her chosen purpose.

The same conclusion supported quashing the notifications and consequential correction of the revenue records.

The preliminary notifications dated 2 June 1999 and 30 March 2004 were quashed, and the proposal to acquire the petitioner’s land was declared to have lapsed.

Any entry showing Respondent Nos. 1 or 2 in the revenue records was ordered deleted, with the petitioner’s name to be restored forthwith.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were left at liberty to proceed against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for failing to take the necessary steps to conclude the acquisition.