Sri. Sadananda. C v. The State of Karnataka

ORDER

¶1Petition is allowed.

¶2The impugned preliminary notification at Annexure-B dated 13.03.2012 issued by KIADB and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed insofar as the schedule properties of the petitioners are concerned."

¶3It is further submitted that the said order was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.67/2023.

¶4Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrasekhar submits that the order passed in W.P.No.28232/2019 and that of W.A.No.67/2023 are matters of record.

¶5The facts are not in dispute that after the preliminary notification dated 13.03.2012, till date no further steps have been taken. Taking note of the orders passed, present petition is also to be disposed of on same grounds.

¶6The observations made in W.A.No.67/2023 and connected matters are extracted below for convenience: "14. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. M.VENKATARAMAIAH AND OTHERS1 followed the decision in the case of K.H.SHIVANNA referred supra, and dismissed the appeal of KIADB which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

1 W.A.No.558/2021 Dated 06.04.2022

Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. M.VENKATARAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS AND OTHERS2. The another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT.ANITHA PURNESH AND ANOTHER3 dismissed the appeal of the KIADB on the ground that there is inordinate delay in issuing the final notification which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT.ANITHA POORNESH AND ANOTHER4. In the case of GOPAL KRISHNA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS5, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of the land owner on the ground that the preliminary notification was issued on 12.08.2020 and till date, no final notification was issued. The said judgment was not interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

2 SLP (C) Diary No.28887/2002 Dated 02.12.2022 3 W.A.No.2402/2014 Dated 12.04.2016 4 Spl. Leave to Appeal No.14117/2016 Dated 05.08.2016 5 W.A.No.1476/2023 Dated 11.01.24

DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ORS. Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA AND ORS6.

¶15In view of the preceding analysis, we are of the considered view that by issuing the notification under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act, the respondent - State Government have created a clog over the property covered under these proceedings and due to impugned notification the land owners, were unable to transact with their properties nor did they receive any compensation, which in our view is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It needs to be observed that it is the beneficiary-KIADB that has filed the appeal challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge and not the respondent-State Government, which is responsible for issuing the final notification, which also clearly demonstrates that beneficiary of the acquisition is insisting to continue the acquisition and not the State Government. The power of eminent domain is with the respondent-State to acquire the private property of the individual and in the instant case, the sovereign has not challenged the orders of the learned Single Judge and even on this

6 Spl. Leave to appeal (C) No.7276/2024 Dated 01.04.2024

ground, the appeals of the beneficiary-KIADB is required to be rejected.

¶16While statutory authorities are vested with discretionary power to acquire land for prescribed statutory objectives, Article 300A of the Constitution provides constitutional protection to citizens by mandating that property deprivation must be grounded in legal authority and conducted through constitutionally compliant procedures. The doctrine of due process inherent in this provision necessarily implies finality of the acquisition process i.e. it must be concluded within a reasonable time period and cannot remain indefinitely pending. The failure of the acquiring authority to achieve procedural completion within such reasonable timeframe generates a corresponding right for land owners to judicially challenge the acquisition proceedings on grounds of unreasonable delay and procedural defect.

¶17The learned counsel for the appellant-KIADB filed application with additional document which indicates that respondent-State Government issued final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act in respect of other lands, which are not covered in these appeals, after the writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned

Single Judge. The said notification would not help the appellant-KIADB in anyway to challenge the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge as the said notification would not explain the inordinate delay. Hence, such contention has merit. We have also noticed that W.A.No.858/2025 is filed with the delay of 1126 days and other appeals are also filed with certain delay, there is no sufficient cause shown in the application to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has recorded the finding that there is an inordinate delay on part of the appellant-KIADB and they failed to complete the acquisition proceedings within reasonable time and by considering the various decisions of this Court, allowed the writ petitions.

¶18We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders calling for interference in these intra Court appeals. In view of the preceding analysis, we are of the view that the appeals are devoid of merits and the same are required to be rejected. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand closed."

¶7In light of the above, petition is allowed. The impugned preliminary notification dated 13.03.2012 at Annexure-D issued by respondent-State stands quashed insofar as lands of the petitioner is concerned.

Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

MCR

NC:(2026:KHC:5240( WP(No.(19143(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(19143(OF(2023((LA-KIADB)( BETWEEN:(( , SRI.,SADANANDA,C., S/O.,CHINNAPPA,K.,M.,, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, R/O.,KARIYANAYAKANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, BHAVANAHALLI,POST,, KASABA,HOBLI,,MALUR,TALUK,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563,130., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAMESH,KUMAR,R.,V.,,ADVOCATE), AND:( 1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, Digitally DEPARTMENT,OF,INDUSTRIES,AND,COMMERCE,, signedtiby VIDYA0G0R VIKASA,SOUDHA,, Location: DR.,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,HIGH COURT0OF BENGALURU-560,001,, KARNATAKA (BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY)., , 2., THE,KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,, DEVELOPMENT,BOARD, TH THNO.49,,4 ,,AND,5 ,,FLOOR,, EAST,WING,,KHANIJA,BHAVAN,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,, BENGALURU-560,001,, (BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR)., NC:(2026:KHC:5240( WP(No.(19143(of(2023( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( 3., THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISTION,OFFICER,, THE,KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,, DEVELOPMENT,BOARD,,, TH THNO.49,,4 ,,AND,5 ,,FLOOR,, EAST,WING,,KHANIJA,BHAVAN,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,, BENGALURU-560,001,, (BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR)., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,SAVITHRAMMA,,AGA,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,P.V.,CHANDRASHEKAR,FOR,R2,AND,R3), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, NOTIFICATION, BEARING, NO.C, 11, SPQ, 2012,, DATED,13/03/2012,ISSUED,UNDER,SECTION,3(1),AND,28(1), OF, THE, KIADB, ACT,, 1966, BY, THE, RESPONDENTS, AT, ANNEXURE-D,ISSUED,BY,RESPONDENT,NO.1.,, , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, B-GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV, , ( ( ORAL ORDER The Petitioner has sought for setting aside the preliminary notification dated 13.03.2012 passed under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act'). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act on 13.03.2012, till date no further steps were taken to effectuate the acquisition. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.28232/2019, disposed of on 21.12.2020, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench with respect to the very same notification under Section 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act, has passed an order observing as follows: "5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite issuance of the preliminary notifications as long back as on 13.03.2012, the KIADB has not taken any steps to proceed with the acquisition proceedings and has neither passed an order under Section 28(3) of the Act nor issued a final notification so far. In this context, having regard to the decisions of this Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and other vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh in W.P.No.2402/2014 dated 12.04.2016, Sri Munivenkatappa and others vs. The state of Karnataka in W.P Nos.58842- 58344/2016 dated 19.07.2018, Smt Indramma and others vs. State of Karnataka in W.P Nos.10667-70/2018 dated 05.07.2019 and Sri.K.Gangadhar and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P Nos.112501- 112506/2014 dated 18.02.2016, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification and the acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following: