Karnataka High Court
M/S Karnataka Industrial Areas ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB
WA No. 238 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- 2,
KIADB, NO. 39, SHANTHI GRUHA
BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING,
4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY,
COURT OF VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURI-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. RATNAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3. SRI SRIKANTH K, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4. SRI B V HARISH, S/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB
WA No. 238 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUQA,
BENGALURU-562 149.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS b) PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13.07.2022 PASSED IN WP No-12996/2022
(LA-KIADB) AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WP ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the
application, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 914 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB]
and another have filed the present appeal, impugning an order
dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.12996/2022 (LA-KIADB).
NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB
HC-KAR
3. The said writ petition was preferred by respondent Nos.2 to
4, impugning the Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 issued under
Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act,
1966 [KIAD Act], for acquisition of petitioners' land measuring 01
acre falling in Survey No.40/335, situated in Bandikodigehalli
Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk [subject property].
4. The writ petitioners claim that, on 03.11.2006, a Notification
was issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, for acquisition of
certain lands, including the subject land. The Final Notification
came to be issued on 07.05.2007. However, thereafter, the KIADB
took no further steps to either take over possession of the subject
land or pay the compensation for the same.
5. In the aforesaid back drop, after several years, the writ
petitioners filed the aforementioned petition, inter alia, praying that
the acquisition of the subject land be declared as lapsed.
6. The learned Single Judge noted that similar writ petitions
challenging the acquisition of land under the Preliminary and the
Final notifications, had been allowed. He noted that some of the
orders were subject matter of appeals before the Division Bench of
NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB
HC-KAR
this Court [WA No.1268/2021 and WA Nos.6387-6390/2017]. The
said appeals were also dismissed and the acquisition notice had
been quashed on the ground as set up by the writ petitioners.
KIADB had also sought Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court
against the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court
(SLP No. 25239/2018). However, the same was dismissed as well.
7. It is contended on behalf of the KIADB that the writ petition
was required to be rejected as it was highly belated. It is submitted
that Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007. However, the writ
petitioners had filed the writ petition almost 16 years later, in the
year 2022.
8. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. The
cause of action for the writ petition, essentially, was delay on the
part of the KIADB in taking any further steps pursuant to the Final
Notification. However, since the KIADB has not taken any steps
as to either acquire the possession of the subject property or to pay
compensation, the writ petitioners were constrained to approach
the Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB
HC-KAR
9. The learned counsel also does not dispute that the appeals
against similar orders had been rejected and KIADB had not
succeeded to prevail before the Supreme Court as well. It is also
not disputed that the award was required to be passed within a
reasonable period.
10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of
the learned Single Judge and the appeal, is accordingly,
dismissed.
11. Needless to say that the KIADB is not precluded from issuing
any fresh notification, in the event, it finds that it is necessary to
acquire the subject land for public purposes.
12. Pending application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
