The petitioner, who asserts ownership of 4 acres 9

guntas in Sy.No.1168 in Belagola village, Belagola Hobli,

Srirangapatna

Taluk,

Mandya

District

-

subject

property, has impugned the Notifications under Section

3

28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 (for short 8the KIAD Act9). The

impugned preliminary and final notifications under the

corresponding provisions of Section 28(1) and 28(4) of

the KIAD Act are respectively dated 13.10.2006 and

03.10.2007.

2.

The undisputed facts are that the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 8the

KIADB9) has simultaneously issued Notifications under

Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act notifying the subject

property and other lands measuring 1495 acres 15

guntas for the purpose of establishment of industrial

area. The petitioner has not filed objections to the first

notice. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB has

passed orders on 01.03.2007 under Section 28(3) of the

KIAD Act. The State Government has issued the

impugned Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD

Act on 03.10.2007.

4

3.

Smt B. V. Vidyulatha, the learned Counsel

for the petitioner, relying upon these circumstances

submits that after the Notification dated 03.10.2007,

the KIADB has not taken any action either to take

possession of the subject property or to pass an award

under Section 29 of the KIAD Act. If the KIADB has

neither taken possession nor passed an award, it is

obvious that the KIADB does not intend to pursue with

the purpose for which the impugned Notifications are

issued. There is failure on the part of the KIADB to take

further action for over a period of 12 years and therefore

the petitioner9s right to the subject property must

prevail over the acquisition Notifications issued. Smt.

B.V. Vidyulatha relies upon the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in H.N.Shivanna and Others vs.

State of Karnataka and another¹ to contend that if

possession is not taken for completion of the acquisition

1 [2013] 4 KCCR 2793

5

proceedings within a reasonable time, the acquisition

must lapse.

4.

As

against

these

submissions,

Sri

Vijaykumar A Patil, learned counsel for the KIADB

placing reliance upon the decision of the Honourable

Supreme Court in M. Nagabhushana vs. State of

Karnataka and others², submits that with the

issuance of Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD

Act given the provisions of Section 29(5) thereof, the

land notified would vest with the State Government free

from all encumbrances unlike when notifications are

issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short,

the L.A Act]. Once the lands vest with the State

Government as aforesaid, the State can put such lands

to any public use and acquisition would not be vitiated

because the compensation is not paid. If there is any

delay in payment of compensation, the rights of the land

2 [2011]3 SCC 408

6

owner would be secured with the payment of interest as

contemplated under Section 34 of the L.A Act.

Therefore, this Court must not allow the writ petition on

the ground that there is delay in taking possession or in

passing the award.

5.

Sri Vijaykumar Patil, when queried about

the KIADB9s stand as regards the decision to continue

with the implementation of the award for utilization of

the acquired lands, submits that even as of date, his

instructions are that KIADB cannot state that it intends

to utilize the subject property for implementation of the

project or for any other purpose. The question

therefore, is not whether the petitioner must succeed on

the ground of delay in taking either possession or in

passing award, but can the KIADB deny the petitioner9s

right to the subject property notwithstanding its

inability to take a stand on utilization of the subject

property even after 12 years from the date of the

7

notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and

without taking physical possession and passing award.

6.

This Court, in the light of the admitted fact

th