Shri. Fakirappa S/O Huvappa Ammannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA, INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAKAMANHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580011.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAKAMANHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580011.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR R1; SRI. PAVAN B.DODDADATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE NOC (NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE) FOR NOT HAVING ACQUIRED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING R.S. NO.31 (NOW NUMBERED AS R.S. NO.31/1, 31/2 AND 31/3), SITUATED AT MUMMIGATTI, TALUK AND DISTRICT DHARWAD AS PER ANNEXURE-J. II) ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDERS OF DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶29

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue NOC (No-Objection Certificate) for not having acquired the agricultural land bearing R.S. No.31 (now numbered as R.S. No.31/1, 31/2 and 31/3), situated at Mummigatti, Taluk and District Dharwad as per Annexure-J.

¶30

ii) Issue such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the

¶32

joint owners of the agricultural land bearing RS No.31 measuring 12 acres 4 guntas situated at Mummigatti Village, Taluk and District Dharwad. The land was originally a tenanted land and the occupancy rights of the same were granted by the Land Tribunal and subsequently, the petitioner and his family members became owners and in actual possession and enjoyment of the land. The petitioners wanted to convert the agricultural land into non-agricultural to form a layout by laying plots for residential use. While seeking the conversion, one document that is required is No Objection Certificate stating that the land has not been acquired by the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondents. Hence, the petitioners approached the respondents by making a representation on 31.05.2024, requesting the respondents to issue an NOC that the land has not been acquired under any Scheme right from 2024. It is further stated that as there was no response to the said representation, the petitioner submitted another representation on 28.04.2025. It is stated that after issuance of the primary notification in the year 2011, till date, the petitioner and his family are in possession of the land. It is further stated that as the final notification has not been issued, the land in question has not been acquired by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents.

¶37

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order on 08.09.2025 directing the respondents to file an affidavit on or before 19.09.2025. After taking time for two occasions, an affidavit was filed on 21.11.2025. When this matter came up before this Court on 28.01.2026, this Court had passed the following order:

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

“ It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner wanted to convert his land from agriculture to non-agriculture and for that, along with an application he has to enclose the NOC given by the respondents stating that the particular property is not acquired. In that regard, the petitioner has made several representations to the respondents and when they have not given NOC, he has come up before this Court. Then a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 08.09.2025 observing that, it is rather shocking that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, which qualifies as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and is the acquiring authority, has issued an endorsement indicating that acquisition proceedings have been pending since 2012, based solely on the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, without any further progress. Hence, respondent No. 1 is directed to examine the matter and file an affidavit clarifying its stand on such cases. For that, the present affidavit is filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Karnataka. It is stated that, before acquiring the land in question already for industrial purpose 952-33-00 acres of land acquired in the same village by issuing the notification under Section 28(4) dated 28.05.2010 and subsequently to cater industrial demands, again further 37-22-00 acres acquired by issuing the notice under Section 28(4) dated 03.06.2011 in the same village. It is stated that, the petitioner’s lands are adjacent to the already acquired lands. Taking into account the anticipated demand for industrial areas, again 63-3400 acres land were acquired including the petitioner’s land by issuing the Preliminary Notification on 03.06.2011. It is stated that, various industries are functioning and still developed plots are vacant and getting allotted.

¶42

2. It is further stated that, in view of the

¶43

above circumstances, much progress did not happen for the acquisition of the lands, which includes petitioner's lands. The delay is bonafide, unintentional and beyond the control of the

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Acquisition Officer. It is stated that, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to place this affidavit on record and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶48

3. It is so unfortunate that an affidavit of this nature is filed before this Court. A person's property for which a Preliminary Notification is issued in the year 2011 and he made to run from pillar to post for obtaining NOC and when he comes before this Court, this is the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary.

¶49

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate shall inform the 1^st respondent that the Court is going to take a serious view of this matter and shall get specific instructions and shall also file an affidavit. The respondent No.1 has failed to answer the query of this Court.

¶50

5. The Principal Secretary shall file a specific affidavit before this Court by 02.02.2026 whether the petitioner’s land is acquired as per law or else the Court will be constrained to pass appropriate orders taking note of all the facts.

¶51

6. List this matter on 02.02.2026.”

¶52

Again on 02.02.2026, this Court had passed the

¶53

following order:

¶54

“On the last occasion, i.e., 28.01.2026 the learned AAG submitted before this Court that they will come up with affidavit of the Principal Secretary. Now, it is submitted that there is no limitation under the KIADB Act like Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that this property is required for the respondents and they would be taking appropriate steps. It is submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that though there is no

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

limitation prescribed but they have to be completed within a reasonable time.

¶59

In this case, the preliminary notification was issued in the year 2011. Till 2026 nothing has happened and at any stretch of imagination this Court is unable to understand what is the reasonable time, as per the respondents. The petitioner wants a no objection from the respondents because he wants to convert his land. The respondents either have to acquire the land and pay him the money or they have to issue a no objection so that the petitioner will be able to deal with the land, being the owner of the property. The affidavit of the Principal Secretary shall answer to all these queries. Hence, the Principal Secretary is directed to file his affidavit.

¶60

List this matter on 11.02.2026.

¶61

No further time will be granted and the Court will be constrained to pass orders.”

¶62

Pursuant to the orders of this Court referred supra, respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit before this Court.

¶63

Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads thus:

¶64

“ 4. I further state that, the acquisition proceedings are in furtherance and objects of the KIAD Act 1966. While amending the KIADB Act, an insertion of certain provisions of LARR Act (new Act 2013) through KIADB amendment Act 2022 (Act 20 of 2022) Sec 24 of new Act, 2013 was not inserted. Hence Sec 24 of (new Act 2013) is not Applicable for acquisition of lands under the KIAD Act, 1966. Under the KIAD Act there is no time limit between issuance of preliminary notification and final notification. I have been advised to state that,

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and there is no illegality, infirmity and irregularity in the entire proceedings. The acquisitions initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act 1966, are done in a phase- by-phase manner. The same has been upheld by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Roy Rodrigues Vs Government of Karnataka reported in 2009 SCC Online Kar 290. It is necessary to refer that a vast extent of land measuring 952-33-00 has been notified for acquisition in terms of the final notifications on 28.05.2010 based on actual industrial demand and the development that could be achieved, the entire extent is subdivided into smaller feasible units and developed in a phase-byphase manner.

¶68

I further state that the subject land located which was acquired under the preliminary notification of the Government bearing No. CI 202 SPQ 2011 dated 03-06-2011, published in the State Gazette on 06-06-2011 adjacent to that already established industrial area in an extent of 952-33-00 acres in the same Mummigatti village by issuing the notification under section 28(4) CI 144 SPQ 2009 Dated: 28-05-2010. I state that State will conclude the acquisition proceedings initiated vide preliminary notification dated 03.06.2011 within a period of 6 months.

¶69

I further state that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case in HMT Ltd. and Another V/s. Muddappa and others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1058 has held that challenging to the Preliminary Notification is premature.

¶70

I further state that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in the case of Smt. Manikyamma vs. State of Karnataka & Others,

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

in W.P. No. 20737/2022 (decided on 06.02.2025), has held as under:

¶75

"It is to be noticed that after issuance of preliminary notification, the petitioners had filed their objections and the same have been considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The acquisition of 11 guntas of land was dropped and in respect of the remaining land, it was recommended for acquisition (para 6). It is further to be noticed that the petitioners' land is an integral part of the entire scheme and therefore, exclusion of the same is not feasible (para 7). Thus, it is clear that the objections filed by the petitioners were duly considered by the authorities before passing the order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act (para 8). It is to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3667/2023, W.P. No. 16422/2022 and W.P. No. 12961/2023 had an occasion to consider similar contentions and it was held that objections raised under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act were considered by the authorities before issuing final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. It was further held that the delay between the preliminary and final notification cannot be a ground to quash the acquisition proceedings, more so, when most of the land owners have accepted the compensation (para 9)."

¶76

I state that, State will conclude the acquisition proceedings initiated vide preliminary notification dated 03.06.2011 within a period of 6 months from the date of order of this Honorable Court. After issuing the notice U/s 28(2) of Act 1966 and after considering of objections by the Writ Petitioner, if any.

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

I, the Deponent above named do hereby declare that, this is my name, signature and contents of the affidavit are all true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. “

¶81

Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits no limitation is prescribed under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘KIAD Act’), however, they will conclude the proceedings within six months from today, as undertaken before this Court.

¶82

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2011 and till now, they have not concluded the acquisition proceedings. Neither they are acquiring the property nor they are giving NOC to the petitioner to convert the land. It is submitted that when the petitioner had given the representation, the respondents ought to have responded to the same. It is submitted that the petitioner has his own apprehension that the respondents will not take it to a logical end even after six months as undertaken by them.

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WA No.557/2021, dated 23.03.2022, wherein the Division Bench considering the submission made on behalf of the government, at paragraph-6 has held as under:

¶87

“6. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no citizen can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See: 'MEHER RUSI DALAL V UNION OF INDIA', (2004) 7 SCC 362, 'P.K. SREEKANTAN V P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR', (2006) 13 SCC 574 AND 'K.B NAGUR V UNION OF INDIA', (2012) 4 SCC 483]. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to ascertain whether the Notification under Section 28(1) of the Act stands vitiated in law on account of the delay caused in issuing the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act within reasonable time, in the light of submission made by learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.”

¶88

Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State, this Court has perused the material on record. Learned AAG submitted that the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 discloses that thousands of acres are under

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

acquisition and the proceedings were initiated in 2011 and relying on certain judgments, they submit that there is no limitation under the KIAD Act for issuing a final notification or passing an award. Prima facie, this Court is not convinced with the submission made by the learned AAG. If any limitation is not prescribed under the KIAD Act, it is assumed that within a reasonable time, a particular activity has to be concluded by the respondents and according to them from 2011 to 2026 cannot be a reasonable time.

¶93

Be that as it may, the prayer that is sought before this Court is to issue NOC by the respondents to the petitioner. In the light of the representation made by the petitioner, the respondents, by this time, ought to have responded to the representation of the petitioner. Considering the scope of the writ petition, this Court is passing the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

i) In the light of an affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents shall conclude the acquisition proceedings

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095 WP No. 105484 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

within a period of six months from today, if not, they shall issue NOC to the petitioner considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶100

ii) If the petitioner is so advised, the acquisition proceedings not concluded even after six months or he is aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, he is at liberty to question the proceedings that are initiated by the respondents.

¶101

iii) Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶102

iv) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶103

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶104

JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Shri. Fakirappa S/O Huvappa Ammannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Fakirappa S/O Huvappa Ammannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Legal Manager, Vs Mohammad Yakub

Ensure Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malatesh Gudda Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, Vs Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

Jeevan S/O. Nagaraj Mattihalli Vs Nagaraj Alias Nagaraj S/O Basappa Ningavvanavar

Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar Vs Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar