Karnataka High Court Quashes 1999 Land Acquisition Notifications Under KIAD Act, Citing Precedent - 2025-03-26

Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Decades-Old Land Acquisition Notifications

Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a significant ruling impacting land acquisition proceedings in Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed preliminary notifications dating back to 1999 issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). Justice R Devdas , presiding over a batch of writ petitions, delivered a common order on March 10, 2025, granting relief to landowners who challenged the acquisition of their lands.

Background: Prolonged Legal Battle Over Land Acquisition

The case, heard under Writ Petition No. 7651 of 2024 and connected matters, involved multiple petitioners challenging preliminary notifications issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. These notifications, dated July 21, 1999, July 3, 1999, and June 2, 1999, pertained to land acquisition for industrial development under the KIAD Act. The petitioners, primarily landowners, sought to have these notifications quashed, citing previous similar cases where the High Court had granted relief.

Petitioners Seek Relief Based on Prior Judgments

Appearing for the petitioners, learned counsels argued that the impugned notifications had been the subject of numerous prior litigations. They emphasized that the Karnataka High Court had consistently quashed these very notifications in earlier writ petitions concerning other landowners affected by the same acquisition process. The counsels specifically referred to the decision in Sri.C.Valliappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.8400/2021, dated 07.06.2021) as a precedent entitling the current petitioners to similar relief.

Respondents Concede to Submissions, NICE Seeks Safeguards

The counsels representing the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE), the respondent parties, did not contest the petitioners' submissions. However, the counsel for NICE (Respondent No. 4) drew the court's attention to another decision, Sri. Natawarlal Jasu Vs. The State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.4399/2023, dated 28.07.2023). NICE's counsel requested that the court grant similar directions as issued in the Natawarlal Jasu case, particularly concerning liberty for NICE to pursue legal recourse against the State Government and KIADB if grievances arose.

Court Relies on Co-ordinate Bench Decisions to Quash Notifications

Justice R Devdas , after considering the submissions and acknowledging the precedence set by co-ordinate benches of the High Court, ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court stated:

> "In view of the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court striking down the impugned notification, the petitioners are also entitled for similar relief."

Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and explicitly quashed the preliminary notifications dated July 21, 1999, July 3, 1999, and June 2, 1999, under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act "insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned."

Future Acquisition Not Barred, Liberty Reserved for NICE

While providing relief to the petitioners by quashing the decades-old notifications, the court clarified that its order does not prevent fresh acquisition proceedings. The judgment explicitly states:

> "This order shall not come in the way of acquiring the subject property by issuing notification afresh, in accordance with law."

Furthermore, acknowledging NICE's concerns, the court also reserved liberty for Respondent No. 4 to pursue legal action against Respondents No. 1 to 3 (State of Karnataka and KIADB) if grievances exist, keeping all related contentions open.

The judgment concludes by allowing the writ petitions, quashing the impugned notifications, and disposing of any pending interlocutory applications, without any order on costs. This ruling provides immediate relief to the petitioners while leaving the door open for future land acquisition efforts by the concerned authorities, conducted in accordance with the law.