Preliminary acquisition notification quashed for land omitted from the final notification and award.

The petitioner challenged preliminary and final notifications issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”), proposing acquisition of his lands at Mogaru Village for an industrial project

Although KIADB officials had recommended excluding 12 acres 72 cents, no formal exclusion notification was issued; the final notification later included 10 acres 66 cents, and an award was passed in 2016.

The petitioner sought to quash the acquisition, alternatively claiming compensation at current market rates.

At the final hearing, he stated that he would accept developed land in lieu of monetary compensation under a Government Order dated 23 February 2021.

1. Whether the acquisition notifications should be quashed, including on the ground that the land was not required for the project or that the proceedings had lapsed.

2. Whether the petitioner could seek allotment of developed industrial land in lieu of monetary compensation.

3. Whether the preliminary notification should be quashed in respect of 2 acres 06 cents in Sy. No. 62/1A, for which no final notification or award had been issued.

The Court considered Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act, under which the preliminary and final acquisition notifications had been issued, and Section 28(6), concerning the subsequent possession process.

It also considered the State Government’s Order dated 23 February 2021 directing KIADB to allot 10,781 square feet of developed land per acre in the same industrial layout.

The judgment cites no judicial precedent and does not set out a broader statutory rule; its relief turns on the status of the acquisition and the parties’ submissions.

The Court disposed of the challenge to the extent of 10 acres 66 cents by upholding the notifications, taking account of the petitioner’s willingness to seek developed land and KIADB’s submission that such a request would be considered.

It treated the remaining 2 acres 06 cents differently: because no final notification or award had been issued for that extent, the preliminary notification could not stand in respect of it.

The notifications were upheld for 10 acres 66 cents, and the petitioner was directed to apply for allotment of developed industrial land within one month; KIADB was directed to consider the request within three months thereafter.

The preliminary notification was quashed for 2 acres 06 cents in Sy. No. 62/1A, and the petitioner’s name was directed to be restored in the revenue records for that extent.