Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 12210

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Jyothi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.105222 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.105242 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Archana A. Magadum
For the Respondents: Ramesh Chigari, Basavaraj Sabarad, Pavan B. Doaatti

Land acquisition proceedings under the Act are vitiated by the failure to issue mandatory show-cause notices and conduct required inquiries. Furthermore, final notifications must be issued within a reasonable time, as an inordinate, unexplained delay in the acquisition process renders the proceedings illegal and subject to being quashed.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Sections 28(1), 28(2), 28(3) and 28(4) - Land acquisition proceedings - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions - Failure to serve notices - The requirement of issuing a notice under Section 28(2) and conducting an enquiry under Section 28(3) are mandatory statutory requirements - Failure to demonstrate service of notice vitiates the entire acquisition process as it denies the landowner the opportunity to show cause or raise objections - Final notification issued without adhering to these procedural safeguards is legally unsustainable. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 13)

(B) Land Acquisition - Timing - Reasonable time for issuance of final notification - In the absence of a specific statutory time limit under the Act for the culmination of proceedings, the final declaration must be issued within a reasonable timeframe - A delay of 14 years between the preliminary and final notification, in the absence of a plausible justification, renders the acquisition proceedings liable to be quashed. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the preliminary and final notifications issued for the acquisition of their lands for the purpose of establishing an industrial area. In one instance, no notice under Section 28(2) was served upon the landowner, and no enquiry under Section 28(3) took place before the final notification. In the other, a period of 14 years elapsed between the preliminary and final notifications, and there was no evidence of proper service of the mandatory show-cause notice.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the government cannot bypass mandatory procedural requirements. As the respondents failed to produce any record demonstrating the service of notices or the conduct of mandatory enquiries, and given the inordinate, unexplained delay in issuing the final notification, the acquisition proceedings were found to be arbitrary and contrary to law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the failure to issue or serve notices under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 28 of the Act vitiates the acquisition, and whether an inordinate delay in issuing the final notification under Sub-section (4) renders the proceedings invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that statutory provisions governing land acquisition must be strictly complied with to ensure due process. The non-service of notices is an illegality that cuts at the root of the acquisition, and the failure to conclude proceedings within a reasonable period implies an abandonment or lapse of the acquisition process.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned notifications quashed qua the lands of the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding kiadb land acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding process non-compliance and acquisition delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. mandatory section 28 compliance and reasonable time requirements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. mandatory Section 28 compliance and reasonable time requirements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. order quashing acquisition notifications for the petitioners. (Para 15)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

Both these petitions call in question preliminary and final notifications issued by the 1st respondent/State of Karnataka, under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The lands in both these cases are different, but concerning the same village acquired for setting up industries. Therefore, the matters are taken up together, heard and considered by this common order.

2. Facts in brief, in Writ Petition No.105242 of 2025:-

The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land in R.S.No.81/4 measuring 02 acres situated at Shinganahalli Village, Dharwad Taluk and District. On an application filed by the petitioner, the Government permits conversion of land of the petitioner for non-agricultural purposes. On 07-07-2008, it appears the petitioner gives a letter of consent for acquisition of the subject land along with several other lands. Preliminary notification then comes to be issued on 07-11-2009 under Section 28 (1) of the Act seeking to acquire several packets of lands including the subject land of the petitioner for the purpose of establishment of industrial area. In furtherance of the said notification, Section 28 (2) notice comes to be issued on 16-12-2009 concerning the land of the petitioner. The notice issued to the petitioner on 31-12-2021 is said to have reached the doors of the petitioner only on 11-01-2022. The petitioner replied to the notice issued under Section 28 (2) contending that she was under the impression that the land was not required for the purpose of setting of an industrial area. On 17-02-2024, a final notification comes to be issued under Section 28 (4) of the Act. The final notification took into its sweep the land of the petitioner as well. Aggrieved by the preliminary and final notification, the subject petition is preferred seeking their quashment.

3. Facts in brief, in Writ Petition No.105222 of 2025:-

The petitioners, who are five in number, call in question the preliminary notification issued by the 1st respondent/State under the Act on 28-05-2010 and the final notification issued on 29-02-2024 seeking to acquire lands of the petitioners in R.S.Nos.58/1, 58/2, 59/1 and 59/2 totally measuring 23 acres 13 guntas situated at Shinganahalli Village, Dharwad Taluk and District for the purpose of setting up industries. The petitioners claim to be owners of the said lands contending that they are all joint family properties and they are in possession of the said lands for close to decades. On 28-05-2010, a preliminary notification comes to be issued declaring certain lands including the subject lands for acquisition for the purpose of setting up industrial area. Pursuant to the preliminary notification, not even a notice under Section 28 (2) of the Act was issued. Therefore, the petitioners applied for conversion of the subject lands from agriculture to non-agricultural/commercial purposes. Accordingly, they got the lands converted between 21-10-2021 and 14-11-2022 and entered into a lease agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to run a petroleum outlet. When things stood thus, on 10-01-2024 an enquiry hearing notice under Section 28 (3) of the Act is issued to the petitioner. In the proceedings of enquiry, it was made known to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘the B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 12210

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JJyothi – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.105222 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.105242 OF 2025

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Jyothi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.105222 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.105242 OF 2025