ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to challenge the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short), the order dated 24.06.2024 passed under Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act and the declaration dated 01.10.2024 issued under Section 28(4) of the said Act insofar as they relate to schedule ‘A’ property. Facts in brief: 2. The preliminary notification proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land was issued on 09.06.2010. A notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act was issued only on 08.09.2023, to which the petitioners filed objections on 17.10.2023. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)-respondent No.2, by order dated 24.06.2024, overruled the objections and recommended acquisition. The State Government thereafter issued a declaration under Section 28(4) on 01.10.2024. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the ancestral agricultural lands bearing Sy. No.211/2 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas and Survey No.250/1 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas situated at Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobali, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. They contend that the lands are fertile, contain bore wells, fruit-bearing trees, a dwelling house and cattle sheds, forming an integral part of the petitioners’ livelihood. 4. The petitioners contend that the acquisition is contrary to the State's own policy reflected in Circular dated 03.03.2007, which excludes fertile garden lands and the lands situated within a radius of 100 meters of gramatana limits from acquisition. They submit that their lands fall within that category and that similarly adjacent lands, particularly Survey No.70 of the same village, have been dropped from acquisition. They contend that the enquiry under Section 28 (3) was perfunctory and no proper spot inspection was conducted to assess the fertility of the land or necessity of acquisition. The partial exclusion of 6 guntas from Survey No.211/2, according to them, renders the balanced land unusable for their traditional occupation of animal rearing. 5. The petitioners argue that there has been an inordinate delay of 14 years between the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 and declaration on 01.10.2024, which vitiates the acquisition, in view of the Division Bench ruling in K.B. Lingaraju Vs. State of Karnataka , (2018) 1 KAR LJ 523 (K.B. Lingaraju). 6. 5. The petitioners argue that there has been an inordinate delay of 14 years between the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 and declaration on 01.10.2024, which vitiates the acquisition, in view of the Division Bench ruling in K.B. Lingaraju Vs. State of Karnataka , (2018) 1 KAR LJ 523 (K.B. Lingaraju). 6. Learned counsel submits that while relinquishing challenge to acquisition of Schedule ‘B’ property, they seek compensation for the same at the market value as on 08.09.2023 in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act, 2013’ for short), since the earlier notification has become stale due to the prolonged delay. It is submitted that the respondent's action deprives the petitioners of their livelihood, and violate the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting interference to quash the impugned notification and orders. 7. The respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB in its statement of objections denied all the allegation of illegality or discrimination, asserting that the acquisition was undertaken strictly in accordance with the KIAD Act. It is contended that the preliminary notification was issued in 2010, long before the mutation and partition relied upon by the petitioners in 2017 and 2018, and therefore, later transactions are void as against acquisition. It is submitted that a spot inspection was conducted, and it was found that Survey No.211/2 lies 217.42 meters and Survey No.250/1 lies 597.30 meters away, from the gramthana limits, both beyond the 100 meter radius as contemplated in the State Circular. Hence, the circular of the State does not apply to the present case. 8. It is stated that 6 guntas containing residential portion were excluded, and the balance land was acquired lawfully for public purpose. It is submitted that the delay does not invalidate the acquisition, as similar challenges were rejected in various writ petitions. Citing reliance on M. Nagabhushan Vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 2011 SC 1113 (M. Nagabhushan) and Chameli Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (1996) 2 SCC 549 (Chameli Singh), it is argued that the land acquisition for a purpose is under State’s power of eminent domain and does not infringe the right to livelihood. Citing reliance on M. Nagabhushan Vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 2011 SC 1113 (M. Nagabhushan) and Chameli Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (1996) 2 SCC 549 (Chameli Singh), it is argued that the land acquisition for a purpose is under State’s power of eminent domain and does not infringe the right to livelihood. It is contended that the compensation has been fixed at `17,80,000/- per acre by the Price Advisory Committee and that all procedures under Sections 28(1) to 28 (8) of the KIAD Act has been duly complied. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record and the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the delay of 14 years between the preliminary notification under Section 28 (1), and declaration under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act vitiates the acquisition?” 10. It is undisputed that the preliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act was issued on 09.06.2010, whereas the final declaration under Section 28 (4) was published only on 01.10.2024, after a lapse of more than 14 years. 11. Under Section 28 (1), the State Government publishes a notification in the official gazette, declaring that the certain lands are required for the purpose of development by KIADB. The notification must specify: i. Survey numbers, extents and village and ii. That the land is required for an industrial area or for other public purpose. 12. Upon issuance of the preliminary notification, notices were given to the landowners regarding the proposed acquisition. From the date of notification, no transfer, lease or alteration of title can take place without the prior permission of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The notification initiates the acquisition proceedings but does not create any vesting of land in the State nor extinguish ownership at that stage. 13. Under Section 28 (2) of the KIAD Act, after publication of the preliminary notification under sub- section (1), the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) must issue individual notices to all the persons interested in the land, calling upon them to show-cause within the prescribed time of 30 days as to why the land should not be acquired. The purpose is to ensure audi alteram partem right of hearing. The purpose is to ensure audi alteram partem right of hearing. Thereafter, under Section 28 (3), the SLAO must receive, consider and record the objections of the landowners and must conduct an enquiry, which may include a spot inspection. Based on such enquiry, the SLAO is required to make a reasoned recommendation to the State Government: i. To continue with the acquisition (wholly or partly) or ii. To drop or modify the acquisition proposal. 14. The stage of considering the objection is mandatory, and if objections are not considered or enquiry is perfunctory, the entire process becomes void for violation of natural justice. Thereafter, under Section 28 (4), the State Government, after considering the SLAO’s report, issues a final declaration stating that the land is required for public purpose and the declaration must be published in the gazette, from that day, the land vests absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. The declaration must however follow within a reasonable period from after Section 28 (1) notification. The KIAD Act does not prescribe a specific time limit, but the process under Sections 28 (1) to 28 (4) must proceed continuously within a reasonable period, otherwise the preliminary notification becomes stale. 15. A preliminary notification cannot be kept alive indefinitely and that an unexplained delay of several years between the issuance of the notification under Section 28 (1) and declaration under Section 28 (4) renders the acquisition invalid. The principle has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court in C. Padma and Others Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others , (1997) 2 SCC 627 (C. Padma), wherein the Apex Court held that the lethargic inaction of the State breaks the statutory connectivity. 16. In the present case, there is no justification forthcoming for the delay of 14 years. The respondents have not shown any continuous steps or special circumstances that kept the acquisition proceedings alive during this prolonged period. Such an inordinate delay defeats the very object of land development and prejudices the landowners’ right under Article 300A of the Constitution. 17. As regards the enquiry under Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act, the petitioners’ objections have been disposed of summarily. The order does not reflect due application of mind to the issues raised regarding the fertility of land, existence of residential structures, and applicability of the 2007 circular. 17. As regards the enquiry under Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act, the petitioners’ objections have been disposed of summarily. The order does not reflect due application of mind to the issues raised regarding the fertility of land, existence of residential structures, and applicability of the 2007 circular. The law is well settled that enquiry under Section 28 (3) must be meaningful and not mechanical, as held in K.S. Chandrasekhar and Others vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) , ILR 1991 KAR 1314 (K.S. Chandrasekhar), Malligamma Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Industries, ILR 2013 KAR 4449 (Malligamma). Therefore, both the inordinate delay and non-compliance with Section 28 (3) renders the subsequent declaration under Section 28 (4) unsustainable in law. 18. The petitioners, however, have given up their challenge insofar as ‘B’ schedule property is concerned and seek compensation under the Act, 2013 based on the market value as on 08.09.2023, in light of the amendment to Section 30 to the KIAD Act, which substitutes the provisions to state that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall be deemed to form part of the KIAD Act, as if enacted therein, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter. Thus, their claim for compensation under the 2013, Act deserves consideration by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The declaration dated 01.10.2024 issued under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act and the order dated 24.06.2024 passed under Section 28 (3) insofar as they relate to schedule ‘A’ property, Survey No.211/2 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situated at Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk are quashed iii. The preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 issued under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, insofar as it pertains to schedule ‘A’ property, is declared to have lapsed on account of inordinate and unexplained delay. iv. The respondents shall, however, proceed to determine and disburse compensation in respect of ‘B’ schedule property (Sy. No.250/1 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas), in accordance with Section 29 of the KIAD Act, by applying the provisions of the 2013, Act, based on the market value as on 08.09.2023. v. It is made clear that if the respondents intend to acquire schedule ‘A’ property afresh, they are at liberty to initiate de novo acquisition proceedings in accordance with law.