[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Fakirappa S/O Huvappa Ammannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
WP No. 105484 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.105484 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. FAKIRAPPA
S/O. HUVAPPA AMMANNAVAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HOSAYELLAPUR, HOSA ONI, DHARWAD,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGDISH S.PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SUJEET S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2026.02.18
10:45:06
+0530
DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA,
INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
LAKAMANHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580011.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
WP No. 105484 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
LAKAMANHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR R1;
SRI. PAVAN B.DODDADATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
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.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
WP No. 105484 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
"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 or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest
of Justice and Equity."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
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.
3. 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:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
" 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 63-34-
00 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.
2. It is further stated that, in view of the
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
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.
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.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate
shall inform the 1st 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.
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.
6. List this matter on 02.02.2026."
4. Again on 02.02.2026, this Court had passed the
following order:
"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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
limitation prescribed but they have to be
completed within a reasonable time.
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.
List this matter on 11.02.2026.
No further time will be granted and the
Court will be constrained to pass orders."
5. Pursuant to the orders of this Court referred supra,
respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit before this Court.
Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads thus:
" 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,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
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-by-
phase manner.
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.
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.
I further state that the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore in the case of Smt.
Manikyamma vs. State of Karnataka & Others,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
in W.P. No. 20737/2022 (decided on
06.02.2025), has held as under:
"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)."
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.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
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. "
6. 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.
7. 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.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
8. 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:
"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."
9. 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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
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.
10. 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:
ORDER
i) In the light of an affidavit filed by the
respondents, the respondents shall
conclude the acquisition proceedings
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2095
HC-KAR
within a period of six months from today,
if not, they shall issue NOC to the
petitioner considering the representation
of the petitioner.
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.
iii) Accordingly, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
iv) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
JTR
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
