AI Overview...
-
Reasonable Time for Final Notification - The KIAD Act mandates that the final notification for land acquisition should be issued within a reasonable period after the preliminary notification, typically within one year, as per the legislative intent and judicial interpretations. Failure to do so results in lapsing of proceedings. Several sources emphasize that delays beyond this period lead to the acquisition lapsing unless extended by court orders or stay SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA BANADA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) vs SRI. V. SRINIVAS - Karnataka, Premakala Prabhakara Reddy W/o. Mr. M. Prabhakara Reddy VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Venugopal V. R. S/o V. Ramaiah VS State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries - Karnataka, Chaluve Gowda alias Chikkonu VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka.
-
Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings Due to Delay - Courts have consistently held that inordinate delays or failure to issue the final notification within the prescribed timeframe causes the acquisition process to lapse, rendering proceedings null and void. For instance, delays exceeding one to two years, without valid extension, lead to the proceedings lapsing, as seen in multiple judgments SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA BANADA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Venugopal V. R. S/o V. Ramaiah VS State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries - Karnataka.
-
Legal Framework and Time Limits - The Land Acquisition Act, including the KIAD Act, prescribes specific timeframes for issuing final notifications—generally within one year from the preliminary notification. If these are not adhered to, the acquisition process is deemed to have failed, unless courts extend the period based on exceptional circumstances Chaluve Gowda alias Chikkonu VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, K. B. Lingaraju S/o Bairappa VS State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries - Karnataka.
-
Judicial View on Delay and Lapsing - Courts have underscored that the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period, and delays beyond this are unjustifiable, leading to lapse of proceedings. The courts have also noted that proceedings are considered lapsed if the final notification is not issued within the stipulated period, typically one year, and this lapse cannot be remedied retrospectively SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA BANADA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board VS Franciscan Service Society of Bangalore Rep. By its Secretary - Karnataka.
-
Implications of No Final Notification - The absence of a final notification results in the nullification of the entire acquisition process, as the proceedings are considered incomplete and invalid. This is reinforced by judicial rulings which hold that the acquisition lapses if the final notification is not issued timely, unless extended by proper orders SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA BANADA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The consensus across the sources is that the KIAD Act requires the final notification to be issued within a reasonable time, generally one year, after the preliminary notification. Delay beyond this period leads to the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. Courts have consistently held that inordinate delays violate the principles of reasonable exercise of power and procedural fairness, resulting in the nullification of acquisition processes. Therefore, to ensure validity, authorities must issue the final notification within the prescribed timeframe, failing which the proceedings automatically lapse SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA BANADA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Chaluve Gowda alias Chikkonu VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka.
Search Results for "Final Notification is to be Issued Within Reasonable Time Kiadb"
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6231 • India - High Court of Karnataka
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
issue a final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act within a reasonable time after issuing the preliminary notification ... LAND ACQUISITION - KIAD ACT - LAPSE OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION - NO FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED - ACQUISITION ... the final notification. ... dated 20.05.2000, issued under Section 28(1)....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29147 • India - Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Anu Sivaraman, Mr. Umesh M Adiga, JJ
... ... Issues: The main issues considered included the nature of the KIAD Act, distinctive application of compensation statutes, ... relating to land acquisitions under the KIAD Act, emphasizing the applicability of the 2013 Act which was deemed inapplicable to prior notifications ... It is therefore contended that the failure, if any, to pass the award within one year from 01.01.2014 would be of no consequence whatsoever and the awards having been passed thereafter, within a reasonable#HL_E....
2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1711 • India - Karnataka
B.V.NAGARATHNA
of a final declaration as well as for passing of award, if final declaration is not issued and award is not passed within stipulated ... point No.1 is in the affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to such a declaration - First respondent-State published a notification ... period, the entire acquisition lapses, unless it is shown by virtue of any order of stay or injunction issued by any Court, authorities ... It has to be done within a reasonable#H....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9925 • India - Karnataka High Court
Sri. Subramanya R., J
due to inordinate delay - Court found that no final notification was issued, leading to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings ... ... ... Findings of Court: ... The court ruled that the preliminary notification had lapsed due to the failure to issue a final notification ... ... ... Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the lack of a final notificat....
2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1166 • India - Karnataka
B.S.PATIL
Reasonable exercise of power includes exercise of the same within a reasonable period. ... However, if the KIADB had taken steps and had passed an award within a reasonable period after the disposal of the writ appeal, there ... In this case, because of the order of the Division Bench, the said date was postponed to the date of Final Notification. ... According to the Parliament, one year is the reasonable time for....
2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 134 • India - Karnataka
B.V.NAGARATHNA
not issued within stipulated time provided by Section 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ... No. 18/1966] - Sections 28(1), (3) - Acquisition of land - Declaration and final notification - Final notification issued more than ... Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 providing time limit for issuance of final notification, not ... final no....
2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 1168 • India - Karnataka
B.S.PATIL
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1966 -Section 28(1) – Lands have been acquired by issuing final notification dated ... There is absolutely no justification for the KIADB to keep quiet for such a long time. ... acquiring body – The entire acquisition proceedings in this case have been abandoned and lapsed due to the inaction on the part of the KIADB ... According to the Parliament, one year is the reasonable time for passing of a final#HL_END....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 857 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
notification issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act concerning land intended for educational use, undergoing contentious legal ... notification for land acquisition, resulting in settlement agreements among parties - Quashing of the final notification in respect ... notification for the specified land while directing subsequent administrative changes to reflect this decision. ... In view of the current disposal of the writ appeals, the respondents must be granted reasonab....
2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 144 • India - Karnataka
ALOK ARADHE, MS.J.M.KHAZI
on ground that final notification was not issued within reasonable period of two years. ... issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on the ground that there was a delay of 14 years in issuing the notification under Section ... During the pendency of this appeal, a notification under Section 28(4) has been issued - So far as the reliance placed by the learned ... The learned Single Judge has quashed the notification d....
2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 35 • India - Karnataka
ANAND BYRAREDDY
delay in passing award - Held, It will vitiate the acquisition proceedings and the proceedings would stand lapsed even though no time ... It has to be done within a reasonable time. As held by the Apex Court in Ram Chand’s case (Ram Chand v. ... According to the Parliament, one year is the reasonable time for passing of a final declaration and two years is the time for passing of an award. If within those periods the final....
Filter by Legal Phrase
