Authorities must complete land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable timeframe; prolonged inaction constitutes a violation of constitutional rights under Article 300A.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

These appeals are filed by the appellants - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) and others under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The particulars of the cases are as under:

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as under:

The respondent - State Government initiated the acquisition proceedings under the provision of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') by issuing the notifications under Section 3 (1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Act notifying the schedule properties for acquisition for industrial purposes. The respondents/petitioners, who are owners of the land, being aggrieved that no further action was taken pursuant to the preliminary notification which was issued in the years 2009 and 2012 respectively, filed the respective writ petitions. The contention of the petitioners was that no final notification was issued for more than 12-14 years, which amounts to abandonment of acquisition proceedings. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge in respect of similarly placed persons. The appellant-KIADB objected to the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitions are not maintainable as there is only a challenge to preliminary notification and it is only a proposal to acquire the land. The appellant-KIADB further objected that the Act does not stipulate any time limit to issue final notification. Hence, there is no merit in the petitions and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge in the respective cases after considering the submissions advanced and relying on judicial precedents, proceeded to allow the writ petitions and quashed the preliminary notifications. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, these appeals are filed by the appellant-KIADB.

3. Sri.Chandrashekar P.V, Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Sri.Gopala B V and Sri.Ashok Narayan Nayak, learned counsels appearing for the appellant-KIADB, reiterating the contentions raised in the statement of objections in the writ petitions, submit that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions are contrary to law and the settled principles governing land acquisition under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, without properly appreciating the contentions advanced by the appellant- KIADB, has proceeded to quash the preliminary notifications issued for acquisition of the lands in question. It is further submitted that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable as the preliminary notifications issued under the Act is only a proposal and not a final determination of rights. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the lands in question are situated adjacent to areas developed by the appellant-KIADB, where there is substantial demand from entrepreneurs for establishment of industries. Considering these aspects, the KIADB has issued final notification in respect of other lands and in view of the order of the learned Single Judge they could not issue final notification for the lands covered under these appeals. In support of their contentions, they placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HMT LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. GENERAL MANAGER (HRM) AND ANOTHER V. MUDAPPA AND OTHERS, (2007) 9 SCC 768 . Hence, they seek to allow these appeals.

4. Per contra, learned coun