Prolonged inaction in land acquisition proceedings for over 17 years renders the acquisition invalid, as timely conclusion is a component of property rights under Article 300A.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. The petitioner has called in question the acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 28 (1) and 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in respect of land, Survey No.41/5 measuring 1 acre situated at Thalaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘scheduled land’).

Facts in brief:

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the aforesaid land and continues to remain in actual physical possession thereof. The said land came to be notified for acquisition for the purposes of Bangalore- Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 14.06.2006 issued under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act and final notification dated 16.10.2008 issued under (4). It is stated that although nearly 17 years have lapsed since the issuance of the final notification, no award has been passed by the acquiring authority, nor has any possession been taken in accordance with law. The petitioner also relies on the endorsement dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning ((BMICAP) Office, which categorically states that no ramp, interchange, link alignment or BMICP facility exists or is proposed upon Survey No.41/5, and consequently, that the land is not required for BMICP. It is further averred that an affidavit filed by the Government of Karnataka before the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.139/2012, shows that 554 acres of excess land had already been handed over to the concessionaire, and that no further land would be delivered. It is further stated that this admission further demonstrates that the schedule land was neither essential nor intended for BMICP utilization. It is submitted that the acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) was never adjudicated in the earlier writ petitions.

3. Heard Sri H.N. Shashidhara, learned senior counsel for Sri H.S. Suhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravindra V. Reddy, learned special counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Sri R.V.S. Naik, learned senior counsel for Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the present acquisition has become stale, abandoned and non est, as no award has been passed for more than 17 years and the respondents have taken no steps to conclude the proceedings. It is argued that the petitioner continues in actual possession and that there is no lawful possession mahazar, spot sketch or contemporaneous record evidencing physical dispossession. It is argued that the land has no nexus with the BMICP, as confirmed by the BMICP in its endorsement dated 05.06.2025 and that respondent No.6 cannot now rely upon a belated theory of ‘ramp requirement’ when the project authority itself disowns such necessity. Further, it is argued that the NICE-respondent No.6, being only a concessionaire, cannot override the technical determinations of the BMICP Planning Office. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the State’s affidavit before the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.139/2012 acknowledges the delivery of excess land and reinforces the absence of any subsisting public purpose. It is contended that the earlier BMICP litigation does not bar the present challenge, since the present notification under the KIAD Act constitute a fresh cause of action.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents w