- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17047 WP No. 2371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SMT. SATHYAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, KANIMINIKE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT -560 074. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17047 WP No. 2371 of 2025 3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. 4. THE BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE, CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NO.05, 2ND FLOOR, LOOPLANE, RACE COURSE, BANGALORE – 560 009, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF BICIPA. 5. M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., NO.1, MID FORD HOUSE, MID FORD GARDEN ROAD, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR., SR. COUNSEL SRI. S.A. AHMED & SRI. MALHARA RAO., AAG DR. RAVINDRA V REDDY & SRI. SIDHARTH BABURAO., SPL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES FOR R1 SRI. VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. R.V.S. NAIK., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.07.1999 BEARING NO.CL.196/98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS IS CONCERNED SHOWN AT SCHEDULE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17047 WP No. 2371 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned notification dated 21.07.1999, issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification has been subject matter of various litigations and this Court has allowed all the writ petitions and has quashed the impugned notification, insofar as the respective writ petitioners are concerned. Learned Counsel prays for similar orders, having regard to the decision in the case of Sri.C.Valliappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.8400/2021, dated 07.06.2021. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Nandi - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17047 WP No. 2371 of 2025 Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE) and Bangalore Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA), do not dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent-NICE would draw the attention of this Court to another decision in the case of Sri.Natawarlal Jasu Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.4399/2023, dated 28.07.2023 and prays that similar directions that were issued to the respondent-State Government and liberty granted to the respondent-NICE, may be given. 4. In view of the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court striking down the impugned notification, the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned preliminary notification dated 21.07.1999 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, is hereby quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17047 WP No. 2371 of 2025 6. This order shall not come in the way of acquiring the subject property by issuing notification afresh, in accordance with law. Added, liberty is also reserved to the respondent-NICE to proceed against the other respondents, in accordance with law if there is any grievance against them. All contentions in that regard are kept open. No order as to costs. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT:AG