- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.22054 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. SURESH KUMAR ARYA S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR ARYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.3, 4TH FLOOR, NARANG CHAMBERS, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. 2. PRAKASH LOBO S/O SRI. ALICE D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.176, 4TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR Ind TOWN, BENGALURU-560044. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, MAHARSHI AVIRANDA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT PUBLISHED ON 16.09.1999 (ANNEXURE-A) (CI.66.NPQ.96 BHAGHA) IN SO FAR AS LAND BEARING SY. NO.30/1 MEASURING 2 ACRES SITUATED AT BILLAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notifications issued under Sections 28 (4) and 28 (5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the KIAD Act’ for short) in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.30/1 (New No.30/1C) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 measuring 2 acres situated at Billakempanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District. 3. The land was notified for acquisition for the benefit of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (‘KPCL’) by final notification dated 16.09.1999 and amended notification dated 31.01.2003. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed owing to non- possession and non-payment of compensation even after a lapse of 20 years. Drawing the attention of this Court to Annexures-C to G, it is submitted that the land was never required for the project and that KPCL itself, by its letter dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-C), admitted that the land was insufficient and remained unutilized. It is urged that continued retention of the petitioners’ land without either payment or utilization is arbitrary, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ representations dated 28.07.2016 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 23.08.2016 seeking de-notification or for an alternate allotment have not been considered by the authorities. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-KIADB submits that upon publication of final notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act, the land vests automatically in the State by operation of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act and therefore, the question of lapse does not arise. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and others1 (M. Nagabhushana) and M/s. Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others2 (Girnar Traders) to contend that once the land vests in the State, it cannot be divested merely on account of delay or non-payment of compensation. The acquisition was for a valid public purpose, and the delay does not nullify the proceedings. 1 (2011) 3 SCC 408 2 (2011) 3 SCC 1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 7. The notifications under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act were issued in 1999 and 2003. Even after two decades, no award has been passed, no possession has been taken, and no purpose has been served. Mere vesting by publication under Section 28 (5) of the KIAD Act cannot override the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. Section 29 (1) of the KIAD Act mandates that compensation must be paid for all acquisitions. Admittedly, no payment has been made nor has any award been passed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer’s acknowledgment dated 13.05.2015 confirms that no compensation was deposited. The communication dated 25.03.2008 by the Special Land Acquisition to the Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB states that the RTC continues in the petitioners’ names - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 and that no development has taken place on the land. Therefore, the respondents’ claim that the land has vested automatically cannot be sustained when neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid. 8. The KPCL's reply dated 03.07.2007 at Annexure-C further confirms that the petitioners’ land acquired for the project is insufficient to the work to be carried out. The statutory acquisition has remained incomplete for over 20 years, which is arbitrary and oppressive, amounting to deprivation without authority of law. The respondents’ failure to act within a reasonable time renders the acquisition ineffective and thus, has lapsed. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SLAO, KIADB and others Vs. K.B. Lingaraju and others3 (K.B. Lingaraju) has held at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under: 3 W.A. No.6819/2017 D.D. 28.09.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 “11. It is well settled in law that the right to hold the property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No citizen can be deprived of his property without following due process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that where a statute does not provide for time limit of performance of an act, such act has to be performed within a reasonable time and what would be the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the cases. (See: ‘MEHER RUSI DALAL vs. UNION OF INDIA5, P.K.SREEKANTAN vs. P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR6 and K. B. NAGUR vs. UNION OF INDIA). Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to ascertain whether the acquisition proceeding initiated by KIADB is vitiated on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the same. 12. However, in the instant case, the preliminary notification was issued on 15.09.2000 whereas, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act was issued on 13.05.2005. Even after a period of 7 years from the date of decision of the Division Bench of this Court, i.e. on 16.12.2010, no action was taken by KIADB to conclude the proceeding of land acquisition. No explanation has been offered for the delay of 7 years in concluding the proceeding which is fatal. Therefore, the learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 Single Judge in the facts of the case and in the absence of the any explanation on behalf of the appellants for the delay in concluding the land acquisition proceeding has rightly held that the land acquisition proceedings insofar as it pertains to lands of the respondents have lapsed on account of efflux of time.” 10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the present case, the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1999 and 2003, without any subsequent action for over two decades, have lapsed on account of efflux of time, accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The final notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act dated 16.09.1999 at (Annexure-A) and the amended notification dated 31.01.2003 at (Annexure-B) insofar as they relate to land bearing Sy. No.30/1C (old No.30/1) measuring 2 acres situated at Billakempanahalli Village, Bidadi - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42125 WP No. 22054 of 2023 Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District are quashed. iii. The subject land shall stand released from the acquisition and the revenue entries, if not already restored, shall be restored in the name of the petitioners. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40