Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22673 (KAR)

SRI. SHANKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/11153/2025 · 2025-04-29

R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17760 WP No. 11153 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 11153 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARI GOWDA. NO.1094, 4TH CROSS, BOGADI SOUTH MYSORE, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPTD., BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BMICP), THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT 14/2, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17760 WP No. 11153 of 2025 4. M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 5. NANDI ECONOMICI CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. S.A. AHMED AND SRI. MALHARA RAO, AAG, DR. RAVINDRA V. REDDY AND SRI. SIDDHARTH BABU RAO, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI 196 SP 298 BANGALORE DTD 3.07.1999 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-B IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED AS ABANDONED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17760 WP No. 11153 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is seeking to quash the preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999, 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 Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE), do not dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17760 WP No. 11153 of 2025 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 03.07.1999 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. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17760 WP No. 11153 of 2025 grievance against them. All contentions in that regard are kept open. No order as to costs. 7. Pending I.As., if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45