Non-service of mandatory Section 28(2) notice invalidates KIAD land acquisition proceedings.

The State issued a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”) on 3 November 2006 to acquire four acres in Sy. No. 74 (new No. 136), Bandikodigenahalli Village, belonging to respondent No. 1.

After individual notice reportedly could not be served, it was affixed on the land; respondent No. 1 did not attend the enquiry, and a final notification under Section 28(4) followed on 7 May 2007.

The land was not transferred to KIADB, and, as admitted, no award was passed, compensation deposited, or possession taken.

Respondent No. 1’s writ petition challenging the notifications was allowed by the Single Judge, who found non-compliance with the notice requirement, prolonged inaction, and prior residential conversion of the land.

KIADB appealed, arguing, among other things, that the petition was delayed and that notice had been duly served by affixture.

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings could stand where the Section 28(2) notice was not effectively served on respondent No. 1 before issuance of the final notification

2. Whether the prolonged failure to pass an award, deposit compensation, or take possession affected the validity of the acquisition, notwithstanding KIADB’s objections based on delay and laches

The Court considered Sections 28(2), 28(4), (5) and (8) of the KIAD Act, which respectively concern notice to interested persons and enquiry, final notification, vesting, and transfer of acquired land to KIADB.

The Court treated compliance with the Section 28(2) notice requirement as material to the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

It also considered the principle that unexplained prolonged inaction in completing an acquisition may be relevant to its validity, while deciding the appeal on the admitted circumstances of this case.

The Court noted that the quashing of acquisition proceedings under the same notification had been upheld by a coordinate Division Bench in W.A. No. 6819 of 2017 and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the final notification had issued in 2007, but no award had been passed, compensation deposited, or possession taken.

KIADB offered no explanation for the absence of an award between 2007 and 2015, and the inaction continued thereafter.

The Court also considered the Single Judge’s finding of complete non-compliance with Section 28(2), in the context of the disputed notice and the endorsement recording respondent No. 1 as dead.

KIADB’s reliance on delay in filing the writ petition and the asserted public-interest purpose of the acquisition did not overcome these admitted circumstances; the Court additionally noted the Division Bench decision concerning the same notification.

The Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s order quashing the preliminary and final notifications insofar as they concerned respondent No. 1’s land; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.