"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other writ or order declaring that the preliminary
notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore,
dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final
notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore,
dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the
First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land
bearing Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40) measuring 04
acres situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as abandoned,
lapsed and non-est;
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other writ or order quashing the preliminary
notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore,
dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final
notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore,
dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the
First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land
bearing Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40) measuring 04
acres situated Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as the First and
Second Respondents have not completed the
acquisition proceedings within reasonable time;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners'
peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule
property.
(d) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case,
in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB and perused
the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though the Preliminary Notification was issued on
03.11.2006 at Annexure-A notifying the schedule property
along with other properties for formation of an industrial
area and Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007 at
Annexure-B, the respondents have not taken any steps to
pass the award or to take possession of the schedule
properties even after a lapse of nearly twenty years. It is
contended that the proceedings have remained at the
stage of mere notification and have not been followed by
any substantive steps for acquisition. Reliance is placed
on the endorsement dated 03.04.2021 at Annexure-F
issued by respondent No.3, wherein it is clearly stated that
except issuing notifications, no further steps have been
taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
several decisions of this Court which have been affirmed
by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that where no
award is passed and compensation is not paid, even after
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
an inordinate lapse of time, the acquisition proceedings
deserve to be quashed. The decisions referred are:
(i) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Vs. ALOKAM VENKAYAMMA1
(ii) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Vs. K.B.LINGARAJU2
(iii) SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3, confirmed in the case
of THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI.
MUNIANJINAPPA AND ANOTHER4 followed by
RP.No.606/2022 dated 28.12.2022, which came to
be dismissed and confirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy
No(s).5692/2023."
4. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of M/S KARNATAKA
INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND
WA.No.6387/2017 D.D 07.03.2018.
WA.No.6819/2017 D.D 04.02.2020.
WP.No.10583/2016 D.D 01.04.2021
WA.No.1268/2021 D.D 17.03.2022
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS5,
wherein it was reiterated that failure to take any steps for
two decades amounts to abandonment of acquisition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 and 3-KIADB, in support of statement of objections
contends that under the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') no
specific time frame is prescribed for passing an award,
and that the concept of "reasonable period" must depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is
submitted that the acquisition cannot be said to have
lapsed merely because some time has elapsed.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions and perused the records.
7. The admitted fact remains that the Preliminary
Notification was issued in the year 2006 followed by the
Final Notification in the year 2007. However, as evident
WA.No.238/2025 D.D 25.09.2025
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
from the endorsement produced by the petitioners, the
respondents have not taken any further steps to complete
the acquisition proceedings, such as passing the award,
determination of compensation or taking possession of the
schedule property.
8. Even though the Act does not prescribe a fixed
statutory period for completion of the acquisition
proceedings, the settled legal principle is that where no
specific time limit is prescribed, the authority must act
within a reasonable period and delay of nearly two
decades without any progress cannot, by any stretch of
imagination be termed as reasonable. The prolonged
inaction of the respondents indicates that the acquisition
proceedings have been virtually abandoned.
9. In similar circumstances, this Court in the series
of decisions cited above, have consistently held that when
no award is passed and possession is not taken within the
reasonable time, the acquisition proceedings must be
NC: 2025:KHC:39974
HC-KAR
treated lapsed. Thus the Preliminary Notification dated
03.11.2006 at Annexure-A and Final Notification dated
07.05.2007 at Annexure-B deserve to be quashed as
having lapsed and abandoned on account of inordinate and
unreasonable delay in completing the acquisition
proceedings after issuance of the Final Notification.
10. In the result, this Court pass the following;
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The Preliminary Notification dated
03.11.2006 at Annexure-A and Final
Notification dated 07.05.2007 at
Annexure-B are hereby quashed insofar as
the petitioners' schedule property is
concerned.
Sd/-
____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
PHM
