ORDER

Petitioner since dead by his L.Rs, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the acquisition of his small piece of land, in all admeasuring 36.12 guntas as described in the schedule hereto. The acquisition process began with the issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 6.7.2010 at Annexure-C followed the Final Notification dated 9.9.2011 at Annexure-D respectfully issued u/s 28(1) & 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

2. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through its learned AGA and the respondent- KIADB & its SLAO has entered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel. The KIADB has filed the Statement of Objections on 22.1.2016 opposing the Writ Petition. The Panel Counsel makes submission in justification of the acquisition adding that now the award also has been passed in the year 2020.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) Deceased petitioner was the absolute owner of the subject property in possession and after his death, his children have succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The subject land which is apparently less than an acre, has been the lifeline of the family of the petitioner and they have specifically stated about the same being the only source of livelihood through cultivation of the same. This averment in the petition has not been denied. The contention that the land is being notified for acquisition for a public purpose and that the land owners would be paid the compensation, cannot invariably be a justification for the acquisition more particularly when what is sought to be acquired is a small piece of an agricultural land which is the lifeline of the family.

(b) The subject land has been notified for acquisition by way of Preliminary Notification dated 6.7.2010 followed by the Final Notification dated 9.9.2011. The award has been passed only in the year 2020 with absolutely no explanation for the delay brooked. True it is that the issuance of Final Notification coupled with Possession Delivery Notice accomplishes the process of acquisition under the 1966 Act. However, a subsequent act of passing the award after brooking enormous delay of one decade would rob away the legality elements that otherwise animated the acquisition process, more particularly when the property rights are constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A, although the same are no longer a Fundamental Right u/a 19(1)(f) post 44th Amendment.

(c) The vehement contention of learned Panel Counsel for the respondents that once the acquisition process is accomplished by issuance of section 28(4) Notification coupled with Possession Delivery Notice, delayed passing of the award being a subsequent event should not affect the validity of accomplished acquisition, cannot be countenanced and reasons for this are not far to seek; true it is, the provisions of section 28 do not prescribe any limitation period for passing of the award or accomplishing the acquisition otherwise. It is also true that the lapsing provision enacted in section 11A of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands away from the scheme of acquisition envisaged under 1966 Act. However, this does not mean that the authorities can sleep over the matter and pass the award after waking up from deep slumber decades after the acquisition Notifications were issued. It hardly needs to be stated that ours is not a Government of East India Company but a Welfare State constitutionally ushered in and therefore, the authorities have to act with reason & justice. Where no limitation is prescribed, they should act within a reasonable period. A decade that separates issuance of the acquisition Notifications and passing of the award would as of necessity vitiate the very acquisition process itself, more particularly when what was stayed was possession being taken over and not the ongoing pr