Smt N Anusuya Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI N. GIRISH Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.869/A, KARNATAKA 17^TH G MAIN, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶19

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.135, 1^ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KIADB TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 103.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 24/04/2010 VIDE NO.CI/232/SPQ/2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 19/08/2010 VIDE NO.CI/407/SPQ/2010 AS PER ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have approached this Court assailing the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’), in respect of their lands situated at Mudhigere Kavalu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. They seek to quash the preliminary notification dated 24.04.2010 and final notification dated 19.08.2010, contending that despite the lapse of more than 14 years, no award has been passed, possession has not been taken and no steps whatsoever has been undertaken to complete the acquisition.

¶33

Brief facts

¶34

The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of

¶35

the lands bearing Survey Nos. 122, 123, 126 and 127 acquired under registered sale deeds of 2000-2001. The preliminary notification dated 24.04.2010 was issued

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act proposing acquisition of 2,051.24 acres including the petitioners land. The final notification dated 19.08.2010 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act came to be issued including the petitioners’ land. According to the petitioners no award has been passed even after a lapse of 14 years, no possession has been taken and no development of the notified industrial area has been taken place. It is contended that only a notice was issued in the year 2024 calling upon for fixing compensation, which demonstrates complete abandonment and non-compliance with the statutory mandate.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings have lapsed only due to inordinate delay of 14 years without passing an award or taking possession. It is further submitted that power of eminent domain must be exercised within a reasonable time, failing which the acquisition becomes arbitrary. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

(i) H.N.Shivanna and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others¹ (H.N.Shivanna)

¶43

(ii) Chaluve Gowda @ Chikkonu vs State of

¶44

Karnataka and Others² (Chaluve Gowda)

¶45

(iii) Vidyasagar M vs State of Karnataka and Others³ (Vidyasagar)

¶46

(iv) S.Shamsundar and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others⁴ (Shamsundar)

¶47

holding that the inordinate delay vitiates KIADB acquisition.

¶48

It is submitted that the failure to take any steps after final notification shows that the respondents have abandoned the acquisition and continuing operation of 2010 notification without award violates Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. It is submitted that the

¶49

1 WA 3189-3201/2010 c/w 3202-06/2010, DD 20.11.2012

¶50

2 WP 39411/2012 DD 18.1.2014

¶51

3 WP 201576 of 2015 DD 27.02.2015

¶52

4 WP 10052 of 2021 DD 14.09.2022

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

petitioners continue to be in peaceful possession and have suffered a serious prejudice in cultivation, availing loans and property rights.

¶56

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶57

KIADB argues that the KIAD Act does not prescribe a statutory time limit for passing an award and relies upon

¶58

the decisions in

¶59

Karnataka and Others⁵

¶60

vs BDA and Others⁶

¶61

(iii) Roy Rodrigues vs Government of

¶62

Karnataka and Others⁷

¶63

and contends that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) is not attracted. Further

¶64

5 AIR 2011 SC 1113

¶65

6 MANU/SC/0060/2011:2011 (1) Scale 533-574

¶66

7 2009 SCC Online KAR 209

¶67

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

submits that in large scale acquisitions involving over 2,000 acres, delays are inevitable and places reliance upon the decision in H N Shivanna (supra) to argue the concept of ‘reasonable period’, depends on the facts of each case and they assert that vesting occurs upon publication of final notification and therefore the petitioners’ challenge is untenable.

¶70

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is,

¶71

whether an acquisition initiated in 2010 where no award has been passed for more than 14 years can be sustained under the KIAD Act and whether it can be declared that the acquisition has lapsed?

¶72

The admitted fact shows that from 19.08.2010 till

¶73

date, no award has been passed, nor possession has been taken, nor consequential steps have been undertaken even today. The learned counsel for the petitioners place

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

heavy reliance on the series of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court to contend that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the award under the KIAD Act vitiates the acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the judgment of the

¶77

Apex Court in Ram Chand and Others vs Union of India and Others⁸ wherein the Apex Court held that prolonged and unexplained delay in completing acquisition proceedings offends, contrary to Article 14, renders the exercise of eminent domain arbitrary and consequently vitiates the acquisition. The Division Bench of this Court in H.N.Shivanna (supra) following Ram Chand's judgment held that the excessive delay in passing the award after final notification renders the acquisition bad in law. This Court in Chaluve Gowda and Vidyasagar (supra) has quashed the KIADB acquisitions on the ground of unreasonable delay. In Shamsundar (supra) this Court has quashed the very same final

¶78

8 (1994) 1 SCC 44

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

notification dated 19.10.2010 that concerns the present petitioners’ land which was quashed on the ground of delay and latches thereby reinforcing the petitioners’ contention that the acquisition proceedings in this case have been similarly lapsed.

¶82

Even though under the KIAD Act no express time limit exists, the power of eminent domain must be exercised within a reasonable time as recognized by the Apex Court and by this Court in the case of H N Shivanna (supra) which broadly held that two and a half years as a reasonable delay in normal circumstances. The delay of 14 years is gross, unexplained and unreasonable and falls far beyond any permissible limit recognized in the precedent. The respondents have not demonstrated any steps taken toward establishing the industrial area nor any bona fides in keeping the notification alive. Such prolonged delay causes serious prejudice to the landowners whose property remains frozen without compensation violating Articles 14, 21 and 300A. The principle laid down in Ram

¶83

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:51082 WP No. 15906 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Chand (supra) and consistently followed by this Court that the inordinate delay vitiates KIADB proceeding squarely applies. The acquisition, having remained dormant for 14 years, must be held to have lapsed due to abandonment and violation of the Constitutional guarantees. Thus, this Court finds that the respondents have failed to act within a reasonable time, despite initiation of acquisition in 2010. The unexplained delay of 14 years in passing the award, coupled with inactivity and non-development renders the acquisition arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings cannot survive and this Court pass the following :

¶86

ORDER

¶87