KIADB acquisition notifications cannot stand when existing site owners are denied notice and hearing.

Lands in Survey Nos. 158 and 159, measuring 9 acres and 20 guntas at Mudigerekaval Village, Sira Taluk, were converted for residential use and a layout of sites was formed.

The respondents in both appeals, or their predecessors-in-title, purchased sites before KIADB issued a preliminary acquisition notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”), on 24 April 2010. KIADB proceeded to make an order under Section 28(3) on 24 July 2010 and issue a final notification under Section 28(4) on 19 August 2010, without notifying or hearing the site owners. The site owners challenged the acquisition notifications in writ petitions. The Single Judge allowed the petitions, set aside the Section 28(3) order and final notification, and remanded the matter for reconsideration according to law.

KIADB appealed, arguing, among other things, that the challenge was brought after nearly ten years and that the petitioners’ names did not appear in the revenue records.

1. Whether the Section 28(3) order and Section 28(4) final notification could stand when the site owners, who had acquired their sites before the preliminary notification, were not notified or heard

2. Whether the Single Judge’s decision should be disturbed in light of KIADB’s objections concerning delay and the petitioners’ absence from the revenue records

The Court applied Sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, which provide for the preliminary notification, the subsequent order and the final acquisition notification, respectively.

It held that where the lands had been converted and sites formed and sold before the preliminary notification, KIADB had a duty to notify the site owners before proceeding with the acquisition; an order and final notification made without that opportunity could not be sustained.

The Court found that the sale deeds showed that the respondents, or their predecessors-in-title, had acquired the sites before the preliminary notification. It therefore rejected KIADB’s contention that the absence of the respondents’ names from the revenue records justified proceeding without notifying them.

Because the site owners were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the Section 28(3) order and final notification, the Court held those steps legally unsustainable and concluded that the Single Judge was justified in setting them aside and remanding the matter.

Although KIADB raised delay and laches, the Court did not separately analyse that objection; it affirmed the Single Judge’s decision on the notice issue.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.