High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Notification Under KIAD Act Due to Delay and Laches. Petitioner's challenge to preliminary notification issued in 2009 dismissed as writ petition filed in 2022 is grossly delayed without explanation.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 13:01:43

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, H.S. Abdul Riyaz Basha, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging a preliminary notification dated 11.12.2009 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). The notification pertained to acquisition of lands including 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.236 and 2 acres 27 guntas in Survey No.237/1 of Kondareddypalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, which the petitioner claimed belonged to him. The respondents were the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner sought quashing of the notification insofar as it related to his property. The court noted that the preliminary notification was issued on 11.12.2009, but the final notification had not been issued. The writ petition was filed in 2022, i.e., after a delay of about 13 years. The court observed that the petitioner had not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay. Relying on the principle of delay and laches, the court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The court dismissed the petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition challenging preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 filed after 13 years from issuance of notification - Petitioner failed to explain delay - Held that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (Para 2).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging a preliminary notification issued in 2009 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 is maintainable after a delay of 13 years without any explanation for the delay.

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Delay and laches
Land acquisition
Preliminary notification
Final notification
Writ of certiorari
Article 226 of Constitution of India

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:2320

WP No. 26117 of 2022 (LA-KIADB)

2024-01-17

M.I. Arun

NC: 2024:KHC:2320

Smt. Sreekala P.A. for Sri Lakshmish G. for petitioner; Sri Naveen Chandrashekar for R.1; Sri Ashok N. Nayak for R.2 & R.3

H.S. Abdul Riyaz Basha

State of Karnataka, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Special Land Acquisition Officer

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 for acquisition of land.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the notification bearing No.CI:532:SPQ:2009 dated 11.12.2009 insofar as it relates to his property.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed that the land in Survey No.236 and 237/1 of Kondareddypalli village belongs to him and the acquisition notification was illegal.

Issues

Whether the writ petition challenging a preliminary notification issued in 2009 is maintainable after a delay of 13 years without explanation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that the land belongs to him and the notification is illegal. Respondents argued that the petition is barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi

A writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification under the KIAD Act filed after an inordinate delay of 13 years without any explanation is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Judgment Excerpts

In the instant case, the preliminary notification was issued on 11.12.2009 acquiring certain lands... However, the final notification has not been issued. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Procedural History

The preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act was issued on 11.12.2009. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2022 challenging the notification. The court heard the matter on preliminary hearing and dismissed the petition on 17.01.2024.