- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 307 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M.G. RAJU ALIAS RAJANNA, S/O D.GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAVI, S/O D.GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI. RANGASWAMY, S/O D.GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAVINAKUNTE VILLAGE, THYAMGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 132. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OFFICE AT No.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, No.39, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA @ MANGALA GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, D/O LATE DODDAIAH. W/O LATE GOVINDAIAH, R/A No. 444/A, NEW No.124, SRINIVASA NILAYA, GOVT SCHOOL ROAD, 1ST CROSS, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/01/2025 IN WP No.887/2025 PASSED BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AT BENGALURU. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Raghavendra for the appellants, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. S. Nagesh for caveat/respondent No.4. 2. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in Writ Petition No. 887 of 2025 have filed this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. This appeal is against the order passed by learned Single Judge, who directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) not to disburse the compensation until the consideration of the application filed by the petitioner in Original Suit No.701 of 2024, pending before learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. 3. The prayer of the petitioner before learned Single Judge was for a direction to respondent No.3-the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to consider the representations dated 20.08.2024, 23.09.2024, and 20.12.2024. The petitioner further sought a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 direction to refrain from disbursing the compensation for the lands in question, or alternatively, to direct the deposit of the entire compensation amount or the deposit of the compensation in Original Suit No.701 of 2024, pending before learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. 3.1 The petitioner has filed Original Suit No.701 of 2024 against the private respondents, seeking relief of partition and separate possession of various properties that have been notified by the respondent-KIADB for the purpose of acquisition. The KIADB has been impleaded as a defendant in the said suit. 4. It is stated by learned advocate for the petitioner-respondent No.4 herein that, suppressing the aforesaid factual aspects, respondent Nos.4 to 6 (the appellants herein) had filed Writ Petition No.34733 of 2024 and sought a direction to the respondent-KIADB to consider their representation for the release of compensation in their favour. It is further stated that the pendency of the suit and the involvement of KIADB in the suit were suppressed before this Court in Writ Petition No.34733 of 2024. In such circumstances, this Court, by its order dated 20.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.34733 of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 2024, directed the KIADB to consider the representation of the appellants herein. 4.1 It is stated that respondent No.4 herein has also made an application seeking the disbursement of the compensation amount in the said suit, which is presently pending consideration. Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, observed that the application filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.701 of 2024 shall be considered in accordance with law and directed the KIADB not to disburse the amount until the application of the petitioner in O.S. No.701 of 2024 is considered. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Raghavendra for the appellants, submits that petitioner-respondent No.4 herein would be entitled to receive only half of the compensation, as the acquired properties are ancestral. He contends that the claim of the petitioner to the full portion of the compensation is incorrect. It is further submitted that there was no disclosure of material facts in Writ Petition No.34733 of 2024. 6. Learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish appears on behalf of respondentNo.1 and learned advocate Mr. S. Nagesh - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 appears on behalf of respondent No.4 by entering caveat and submitted that the order of learned Single Judge is justified. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions and the pleadings, it can be observed that the petitioner and the private respondents are before the Civil Court in O.S. No.701 of 2024, seeking partition and separate possession of various properties that have been notified by the KIADB for the purpose of acquisition. The rights and interests of the private parties and their respective extents, are the subject matter in O.S. No.701 of 2024. Until the civil court adjudicates the extent of the rights and interests in the properties of the respective parties, the disbursement of compensation would not be appropriate. 7.1 Learned Single Judge, having considered the above factual aspects, has rightly directed the KIADB not to disburse the amount until the civil court considers the application of the petitioner in O.S. No.701 of 2024, while further directing the jurisdictional civil court to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. The order of learned Single Judge, in the facts of the present case, is well-reasoned and justifiable. No infirmity can be found in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17476-DB WA No. 307 of 2025 the order of learned Single Judge that would warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is merit less and dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16