Inordinate delay of 14 years in land acquisition invalidates the process, necessitating quashing of prior notifications and ensuring entitlement to compensation under the 2013 Act.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to challenge the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short), the order dated 24.06.2024 passed under (3) of the KIAD Act and the declaration dated 01.10.2024 issued under (4) of the said Act insofar as they relate to schedule ‘A’ property.

Facts in brief:

2. The preliminary notification proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land was issued on 09.06.2010. A notice under Section 28 (2) of the KIAD Act was issued only on 08.09.2023, to which the petitioners filed objections on 17.10.2023. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)-respondent No.2, by order dated 24.06.2024, overruled the objections and recommended acquisition. The State Government thereafter issued a declaration under (4) on 01.10.2024.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the ancestral agricultural lands bearing Sy. No.211/2 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas and Survey No.250/1 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. They contend that the lands are fertile, contain bore wells, fruit-bearing trees, a dwelling house and cattle sheds, forming an integral part of the petitioners’ livelihood.

4. The petitioners contend that the acquisition is contrary to the State's own policy reflected in Circular dated 03.03.2007, which excludes fertile garden lands and the lands situated within a radius of 100 meters of gramatana limits from acquisition. They submit that their lands fall within that category and that similarly adjacent lands, particularly Survey No.70 of the same village, have been dropped from acquisition. They contend that the enquiry under Section 28 (3) was perfunctory and no proper spot inspection was conducted to assess the fertility of the land or necessity of acquisition. The partial exclusion of 6 guntas from Survey No.211/2, according to them, renders the balanced land unusable for their traditional occupation of animal rearing.

5. The petitioners argue that there has been an inordinate delay of 14 years between the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 and declaration on 01.10.2024, which vitiates the acquisition, in view of the Division Bench ruling in K.B. Lingaraju Vs. State of Karnataka , (2018) 1 KAR LJ 523 (K.B. Lingaraju).

6. Learned counsel submits that while relinquishing challenge to acquisition of Schedule ‘B’ property, they seek compensation for the same at the market value as on 08.09.2023 in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act, 2013’ for short), since the earlier notification has become stale due to the prolonged delay. It is submitted that the respondent's action deprives the petitioners of their livelihood, and violate the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting interference to quash the impugned notification and orders.

7. The respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB in its statement of objections denied all the allegation of illegality or discrimination, asserting that the acquisition was undertaken strictly in accordance with the KIAD Act. It is contended that the preliminary notification was issued in 2010, long before the mutation and partition relied upon by the petitioners in 2017 and 2018, and therefore, later transactions are void as against acquisition. It is submitted that a spot inspection was conducted, and it was found that Survey No.211/2 lies 217.42 meters and Survey No.250/1 lies 597.30 meters away, from the gramthan