Successive acquisition declarations and delay in final notification may be valid where the statutory scheme and facts justify them.

Under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, successive declarations under Section 28(4) are permissible because the Act permits the Government to consider objections and issue declarations in respect of individual lands; the scheme is not treated as identical to the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The article also states that delay in issuing the final notification or passing the award does not by itself vitiate acquisition: reasonableness depends on the statutory scheme and facts, and the challenge weakens where the landowners had sold the property long before the later stages and could not show legally relevant prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether successive declarations under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 are permissible; (ii) whether delay in issuing the final notification and passing the award vitiates the acquisition proceedings.

Issue (i): whether successive declarations under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 are permissible

Analysis: The scheme of acquisition under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 differs materially from the scheme under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under the Act, the State Government considers objections under Section 28(3) and may issue a declaration under Section 28(4) in respect of any land; there is no requirement of one collective report covering all objections or a single composite declaration for the entire notified area. The provisions therefore are not in pari materia with the unamended Land Acquisition Act, and the limitation drawn from the earlier Land Acquisition Act scheme does not apply.

Conclusion: Successive declarations under Section 28(4) are permissible, and this challenge fails.

Issue (ii): whether delay in issuing the final notification and passing the award vitiates the acquisition proceedings

Analysis: Though acquisition powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, the reasonableness of delay depends on the statutory scheme and the facts of the case. The Court noted that the petitioners had sold the lands shortly after the preliminary notification and had ceased to be owners long before the final notification and award. In those circumstances, the delay did not prejudice them in relation to compensation, and the challenge based on belated acquisition lacked merit. The Court also held that the petitioners' conduct and lack of bona fides defeated the plea that the acquisition had lapsed because of delay.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings in the facts of this case.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was upheld, and the writ appeals were dismissed without interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the acquisition statute provides a distinct procedure allowing the Government to act on individual objections and issue declarations parcel-wise, successive declarations are lawful; and delay will not invalidate acquisition unless, on the facts, it is shown to have caused legally relevant prejudice or to have rendered the exercise unreasonable.

---