- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17036 WP No. 11095 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. 11095 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SHRI. SHANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMAPPA, R/A NO.54,1ST MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVNAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 003.. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, E-WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BMICP) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17036 WP No. 11095 of 2025 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFIRD GARDEN, MG ROAD, BENGALURU - 01 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. …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. P.V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3, SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.01.2003 BEARING NO. CI 196 SPQ 98 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE A WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND IN SURVEY. NO. 186 (OLD SURVEY. NO. 26) TO AN EXTENT OF 28 GUNTAS INCLUDING 2 GUNTAS OF KHARAB LAND SITUATED AT KOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AS ABANDONED, LAPSED, NON- EST AND NULL AND VOID AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17036 WP No. 11095 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 29.01.2003, 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) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17036 WP No. 11095 of 2025 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 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 29.01.2003 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:17036 WP No. 11095 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