Karnataka High Court
Rakesh Babu Govindareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
WP No. 12078 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 12078 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY
S/O GOVINDA REDDY R. B.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO. 962/171, 4TH FLOOR
2ND CROSS, 11TH BLOCK,
NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
2. H.JYOTHILAKSHMI
W/O GOVINDA REDDY R. B.,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.21, 1ST 'G' CROSS,
Digitally signed SUBANNA GARDEN MAIN ROAD,
by NAGAVENI
Location: High
BEHIND BTS GARAGE,
Court of RPC LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 040.
3. LOKESH BABU G.,
S/O GOVINDA REDDY R. B.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.21, 1ST 'G' CROSS,
SUBANNA GARDEN MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND BTS GARAGE,
RPC LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
WP No. 12078 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. PAVITHRA ANILKUMAR
W/O V.ANIL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1192, SRI RAJARAJESHWARI NILAYA,
GOKHALE ROAD, BEML LAYOUT,
3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
5. SOMANNA
S/O MUNIBHAIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAKUNTANAHALLI,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
KARNATAKA - 562 109.
6. RAJAMMA
S/O MUNIBHAIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAKUNTANAHALLI,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
KARNATAKA - 562 109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES,
O/AT M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
WP No. 12078 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
MEMBER SECRETARY,
O/AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
RP BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
O/AT NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RP BUILDING
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
O/AT NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
RP BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD.,
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF MG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY AUTHORISED MANAGER.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.04.2025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI C.CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC.
3(1) OF THE ACT DATED 24.01.2003 BEARING NO. CI:196:SPQ
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
WP No. 12078 of 2025
HC-KAR
98 WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE DECLARED AS
INDUSTRIAL AREA (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following
prayers:
"a) Issue appropriate Writ, Order quashing the Notification
under Sec. 3(1) of the Act dated 24.01.2003 bearing No.
CI:196:SPQ 98 wherein the Petitioners' lands are declared as
industrial area (Annexure - A);
b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order quashing Notification under
Sec. 1(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2003 bearing No.CI:196:SPQ
98 (Annexure-B) issued by Respondent Authorities insofar as
the Petitioners' properties are concerned;
c) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order quashing the Preliminary
Notification under Sec. 28(1) of the Act dated 29.01.2003
bearing No.CI:196: SPQ 98 (Annexure - C) issued by
Respondent Authorities insofar as the Petitioners' properties
are concerned.
d) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order declaring the acquisition
proceedings as lapsed insofar as the Petitioners' properties are
concerned.
e) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
HC-KAR
2. This Court on 03.06.2025 on hearing
Sri.Subramanya R, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners had passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Subramanya R.,
appearing for the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to
serve a copy of the petition papers upon the learned
counsel, Sri. Nitin Prasad, appearing for respondent
No.5, forthwith.
List the matter on 10.06.2025."
3. The learned counsel for the respondents had sought
time to seek instructions and verify whether the issue stands
covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in
W.P.No.21521 of 2022 (LA-KIADB), disposed on 14.11.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the issue indeed stands covered and the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. The Coordinate
Bench in W.P.No.21521 of 2022 (LA-KIADB) has held as
follows:
"In this petition, petitioners have sought for the
following reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by
quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 29.01.2003
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
HC-KAR
bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:1998 issued by the respondent
No.3 authority which is produced and marked as
Annexure - C..
b. To declare that the acquisition proceedings
initiated by the respondent authorities in respect of the
properties bearing Sy.No.100/1 old Sy.No.100 measuring
to an extent of 0-08 gunats, Sy.No.101/1 old Sy.No.101
measuring to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas and
Sy.No.115 New Sy.No.115/1 to 115/6 measuring to an
extent of 05-00 acres situated in Kodagahalli Village,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is lapsed /
abandoned.
c. To pass such order suitable as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to be granted in the facts and
circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 and also
perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged on behalf of the petitioners and referring to the
documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that
subsequent to issuance of the preliminary notification
dated 29.01.2003, issued under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for
short "the KIAD Act"), respondent No.2 has not issued
the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act
so far and as such, the entire acquisition has lapsed. It is
therefore submitted that the impugned preliminary
notification deserves to be quashed.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
invites my attention to the following decisions of this
Court:-
i. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
and other vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh in W.A. No.2402/2014
dated 12.04.2016.
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
HC-KAR
ii. Sri Munivenkatappa and others vs. The state of
Karnataka in W.P Nos.58842-58344/2016 dated
19.07.2018
iii. Smt Indramma and others vs. State of
Karnataka in W.P Nos.10667-70/2018 dated 05.07.2019
iv. Sri.K.Gangadhar and others vs. State of
Karnataka and others in W.P Nos. 112501-112506/2014
dated 18.02.2016
v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State of Karnataka &
Others - W.P.No.6354-6356/2011 dated 01.12.2011.
vi. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and
Others - W.P.No.32704-32705/2017 dated 05.12.2017
vii. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and
Others - W.P.No.36021-36026/2017dated 06.02.2018
viii. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State of Karnataka and
Others - W.P.No.35031/2017 and connected matters
dated 19.01.2018
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits
that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent
No.5 to take appropriate legal action against the
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 would controvert the said
submission and submit that the respondent No.5 is not
entitled to any relief as against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, the
material on record indicates that despite issuance of the
preliminary notification as long back as on 29.01.2003,
the KIADB has not taken any steps to proceed with the
acquisition proceedings and has neither passed an order
under Section 28(3) of the Act nor issued a final
notification so far. In this context, having regard to the
aforesaid decisions of this Court and the long and
inordinate delay and latches on the part of the
respondents in failing to take steps to complete the
acquisition proceedings despite a lapse of almost 19
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
HC-KAR
years, I am of the considered opinion that the acquisition
proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary
notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act have
been abandoned and stood lapsed and the same
deserves to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant
to the impugned preliminary notification dated
29.01.2003, issued by the State under Section 28(1) of
the KIAD Act is hereby quashed insofar as the schedule
properties of the petitioners are concerned.
iii) Liberty is however reserved in favour of
respondent No.5 to take recourse to such remedies as
available in law against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
iv) It is needless to state that liberty is also
reserved in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to defend any
such action to be taken by the respondent No.5 against
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
v) It is further directed that all rival contentions
inter-se between respondent Nos.1 to 5 are kept open
and no opinion is expressed on the same."
5. In the light of the submission in unison, I deem it
appropriate to dispose the petition on the very same reasons
rendered by the Coordinate Bench.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:19604
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The Notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act
dated 24.01.2003 bearing No.CI:196:SPQ 98 wherein
the Petitioners' lands are declared as industrial area
(Annexure-A) is hereby quashed.
iii) The Notification under Sec. 1(3) of the Act
(Annexure-B) issued by Respondent Authorities insofar
as the Petitioners' properties are concerned is hereby
quashed.
iv) The impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant
to the impugned preliminary notification dated
29.01.2003, issued by the State under Section 28(1) of
the KIAD Act is hereby quashed insofar as the schedule
properties of the petitioners are concerned.
v) Liberty is however reserved in favour of
respondent No.5 to take recourse to such remedies as
available in law against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
vi) It is needless to state that liberty is also
reserved in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to defend
any such action to be taken by the respondent No.5
against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
vii) It is further directed that all rival contentions
inter-se between respondent Nos.1 to 5 are kept open
and no opinion is expressed on the same."
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending I.As
stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44/CT:SS
