IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25913 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. HENRY DSILVA S/O LATE BAPTIST DSILVA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT A-31, MENDES PLAZA OPPOSITE WOODLANDS HOTEL BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT – 575003.

2. MRS. IRENE DSILVA W/O LATE VALERIAN DSILVA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.1-2/1, MRPL ROAD SURATHKAL, MANGALORE DK DISTRICT-575014.

Digitally signed by

3. MRS GLADYS DSILVA MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH W/O OSWALD RODRIGUES COURT OF AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KARNATAKA R/AT NO.1-2/1, ROSEVITA VILLA KANA HOUSE, SURATHKAL MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT - 575014 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADLENE STEPHANIE MENDES, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB ZONAL OFFICE, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW MANGALORE-575 011 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1;

SRI. ASHWIN G. RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING DATED 03.06.1996 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-1 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966 WITH REGARD TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE A, B AND C ANNEXED TO THIS PETITION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification dated 03.06.1996 vide Annexure-A on the ground that even after the lapse of more than 25 years, no further proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification have been concluded by the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.3 had filed an application under the Right to Information (‘RTI’ for short) before the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking information regarding the acquisition of the petition lands. The petitioners were informed through reply that no final notification of the petition lands had been published in the official State gazette.

4. Further, learned counsel drew the attention to Annexure-AM, a communication from respondent No.3 to respondent No.1, wherein respondent No.3 intimated that the petition lands should be de-notified as per the letter dated 24.11.2022. It is also brought to the notice that, the beneficiary authority addressed a separate communication to respondent No.3 stating that the petition lands were no longer required for the intended purpose and that the same could be de-notified.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that, pursuant to the preliminary notification, no final notification has been issued. A letter was addressed to respondent No.1 recommending that the petition lands be de-notified, and a memo has been filed to that effect before this Court.

6. The memo is taken on record.

7. The delay of over 25 years from the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act 1894’ for short), without any sub-sequential action, is a classic example of administrative lethargy, which means that the necessity for the public purpose originally cited in the year 1996 no longer exist or was brought into existence. The right of the property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Prolonged uncertainty over the ownership and possession effectively deprives the citizen of that right. This prin