- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8464 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: BRIGHTSWORD TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.583, 9TH MAIN ROAD, CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 038. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR B.SUMANTH KUMAR REDDY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMU S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD # 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, 'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SLAO OFFICE-2, NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDINGS, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, 'EAST WING' KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 4. KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 5. M/S SRI. PANCHAJANYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, NO.2/19/3, FOREST OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533 033. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VKRSV PRASAD RAO. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-3 & R-4 & SRI. V. VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 14.03.2023 SIGNED ON 15.03.2023 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. KIADB/SLAO/3761/2022-23 PASSED BY R2 AT ANNX-E AS ILLEGAL VITIATED BY MALAFIDES AND ARBITRARINESS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue writ of appropriate nature of certiorari setting aside the orders dated 14/3/2023 signed on 15/3/2023 in proceedings No.KIADB/SLAO/37612022-23 passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure – E as illegal, vitiated by malafides and arbitrariness; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 b) Recall the orders dated 15/11/2022 passed in WP No.50240/2018 filed by Respondent No.5 at Annexure - D and recall by reviewing the orders has been obtained by playing misrepresentation and fraud; c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to issue necessary notification in respect of 36 guntas in survey number 20/1B as part and parcel of the acquisition process towards the formation of IT park project of the petitioner. d) Pass any such order Honourable court deems fit and warrants the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 09.03.2004 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 (for short, ‘KIADB Act’), respondent Nos.1 and 2 passed an order dated 28.12.2017 under Section 28(3) of the KIADB Act, which was followed by final notification dated 03.02.2018 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 28(4) of the KIADB Act. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that delay of almost 14 years between the aforesaid preliminary notification dated 09.03.2004 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 and final notification dated 03.02.2018 was on account of several litigations including earlier final notifications and Section 28(3) orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 – KIADB. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings, respondent No.5 – land owner preferred W.P.No.50240/2018 as under: “IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.50240 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/S PANCHAJANYA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SURVEY NO.20/1B, KADUBEESANAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE. R/P BY ITS: DIRECTOR, V. SARATH CHANDRA, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O V.K.R.S.V.PRASAD RAO, 2-19-3, FOREST OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, KAKINADA-533 003, ANDHRAPRADESH. … PETITIONER (BY SRI V. VISHWANATH SETTY, ADV.) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BOARD ESTABLISHED AND CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. R/P BY ITS: EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. … RESPONDENT/S - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 (BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R-1 & 2; SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD 28.12.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 28(3) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 (HEREIN AFTER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), IN SO FAR AS THE CONVERTED LAND BEARING SY.NO.20/1B, MEASURING 35 GUNTAS+1 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KADUBEESANAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU, BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY: LAND IN SURVEY NO.20/2, WEST BY:LAND IN SY.NO.20/1-A NORTH BY: ROAD, SOUTH BY: LAND IN SY.NO.22, OWNED BY THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Respondent No.2, dated: 28/12/2017, vide No.KIAD/SPL L Acq/3329/2017-18, passed under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Ac, 1966 (herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as the Act), in so far as the converted land bearing Survey No.20/1B, measuring 35 guntas + 1 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore Taluk, presently Bangalore East Taluk, Bengaluru, bounded on the East by: land in Survey No.20/2, West by: Land in Sy.No.20/1-A, North by: Road, South by: Land in Sy.No.22, owned by the petitioner is concerned, produced at ANNEXURE-A, ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, dated 3.2.2018, vide No.CI 27 SPQ, Bengaluru, published by the Respondent No.3, in the Official gazette dated: 8.2.2018, in so far as the converted land bearing Survey No.20/1B, measuring 35 guntas + 1 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, presently Bangalore East aluk, Bengaluru, bounded on the East by: Land in Survey No.20/2, West by: land in Sy No.20/1-A, North by: Road, South By: Land in Sy No.22, owned by the petitioner is concerned produced at ANNEXURE-B. 2. Heard Sri V.Vishwanath Setty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 - KIADB and the learned Additional Government Advocate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 representing respondent No.3 - State and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 09.03.2004 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the KIAD Act"), respondents issued a final notification dated 07.09.2004 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The predecessor in title of the petitioner and other land owners assailed the said notifications in W.P.No.9040/2005 and connected matters. By final order dated 03.11.2009, this Court set aside the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the respective petitioners and considering their objections and documents. 4. Subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 03.11.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9040/2005 referred to supra, respondents did not take up further proceedings after remand. In the meanwhile, petitioner purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2013. On 13.01.2017, the respondents issued a notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act to all land owners including petitioner herein, who submitted detailed objections at Annexure-E dated 27.02.2017 along with documents giving several reasons as to why the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject property should not be continued and that the same deserves to be dropped. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of a detailed objections on 27.02.2017, respondents have once again passed the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 28.12.2017 under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, without adverting to or considering / appreciating the various contentions urged by the petitioner in its objections, pursuant to which the respondents have proceeded to issue a final notification dated 03.02.2018, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 6. Per contra, reiterating various contentions urged in the statement of objections, learned counsel for the respondents - KIADB submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite this Court directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the landowners including the petitioner herein by providing reasonable opportunity to them and consider their objections coupled with the fact that the petitioner has filed a detailed objections on 27.02.2017 vide Annexure-E, respondent No.2 - SLAO once again fell in error in proceeding to pass the impugned order under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act without adverting to or considering/appreciating the various contentions, claims and grounds urged in the detailed objections filed by the petitioner and the documents produced by him, which is not only contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 28(3) of the Act, but also violative of principles of natural justice as well as the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.9040/2005 supra, particularly when the impugned order is an unreasoned, cryptic and non-speaking order without application of mind and consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 28.12.2017 passed under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act deserves to be quashed insofar as subject land of the petitioner is concerned and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh after considering the objections and documents submitted by the petitioner and hearing him in accordance with law. Consequent upon setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.12.2017 under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act dated 03.02.2018 also deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, I pass the following: i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 28.12.2017 and the final notification at Annexure-B dated 03.02.2018 are hereby set aside insofar as subject land of the petitioner is concerned. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 - SLAO for reconsideration afresh and to pass appropriate speaking orders by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the objections, documents etc. already submitted by the petitioner and after hearing him, in accordance with law. iv) The petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.2 - SLAO on 28.11.2022 without awaiting further notice in this regard. v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall also be considered by respondent No.2 while proceeding to pass appropriate orders as stated supra. vi) Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders as states supra, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from 28.11.2022.” 5. As can be seen from the cause title of the aforesaid petition, petitioner herein was not arrayed as party to the aforesaid writ petition. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that it had acquired right over the portion of the property, which was subject matter of the acquisition and that respondent No.5 herein / writ petitioner ought to have been arrayed the petitioner as party to W.P.No.50240/2018. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property was allotted in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the decision taken in the said State Level Single Window Agency (SLSWA) held on 20.10.2003. It is therefore contended that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 petitioner was both proper and necessary party to the aforesaid W.P.No.50240/2018 which was disposed of by this Court without notifying the petitioner nor hearing it thereby violating principles of natural justice warranting the said order to be revisited / reviewed by this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is pointed out that even before respondent Nos.1 and 2 – KIADB passed an order dated 28.12.2017 under Section 28(3) of the KIADB Act, which was ultimately quashed by this Court in W.P.No.50240/2018 dated 15.11.2022, the petitioner herein had submitted an affidavit dated 17.04.2017 along with a bond relinquishing any claim whatsoever in the subject matter of the land and consequently, there was no requirement / warrant for the respondent No.5 or respondent Nos.1 to 4 to array the present petitioner as party to the aforesaid writ petition. It is also submitted that petitioner does not have any right over the subject land and as - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 such, there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already made payments of necessary fee in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards allotment of subject land in its favour and as such, the petitioner was both proper and necessary party to the aforesaid Writ Petition No.50240/2018 and since the same was disposed of without arraying the petitioner as party or notifying it or hearing it, the aforesaid order passed in W.P.No.50240/2018 deserves to be set aside. 9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that there are several rival contentions, allegations and counter- allegations made by the petitioner on one hand and respondent Nos.1 to 5 on the other hand against each other in relation to the subject land. It is further a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner was neither arrayed as party nor was notified or heard before this Court which disposed of W.P.No.50240/2018 vide final order dated 15.11.2022. Under these circumstances, on this short ground alone for not being notified about the said petition in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 relation to the land claimed by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions and in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to get himself impleaded as party to W.P.No.50240/2018 and to contest the same in accordance with law, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.50240/2018 and restore the said petition to the file of this Court for disposal in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.50240/2018 preferred by respondent No.5 herein is hereby set aside. (iii) W.P.No.50240/2018 is restored to the file of this Court. (iv) Respondent No.5 is hereby directed to implead the petitioner herein as additional respondent No.4 to W.P.No.50240/2018. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10526 WP No. 8464 of 2023 (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek impleadment in the aforesaid W.P.No.50240/2018, which shall be considered by the appropriate Bench having roster. (vi) Registry is directed to post W.P.No.50240/2018 before appropriate Bench having roster. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42