- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20737 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SMT. MANIKYAMMA W/O. S.R. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. SAMPIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH R.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONICS NIKETAN 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), NO.39, SHANTI GRUHA, 4TH FLOOR, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BIOTECHNOLOGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MS BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2 AND R5; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNX-D ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(1) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT BEARING NO.CI 443 SPQ 2009, BENGALURU DATED 09.06.2010 IN SO FOR THE EXTENT OF LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner claims to be the erstwhile owner of land measuring 02 acres 21 ½ guntas situated at Chapparadahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District is before this Court being aggrieved by the notification dated 09.06.2010 issued under Sections 3(1) and Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') and the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) of the said Act dated 25.05.2022, seeking following reliefs: a) "Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ in the like nature quashing the Notification vide ANNEXURE D issued under section 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIAD Act bearing no. CI 443 SPQ 2009, Bengaluru Dated: 09.06.2010 in so for the extent of land of the Petitioner is concerned; b) Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ in the like nature quashing the Notification vide ANNEXURE G issued under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act bearing no. CI 116 SPQ(e) 2022, Bengaluru Dated: 25-05-2022 in so for as the extent of land of the Petitioner is concerned; and c) pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity. d) Award costs to the petitioner." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition and the grounds urged therein raised following contentions: a) That preliminary Notification was issued on 09.06.2010, while the Final Notification has been issued on 25.05.2022 that is after long and inordinate delay of 12 years. b) That though in the Preliminary Notification, purpose of the acquisition is mentioned, the same is not found in the Final Notification. c) That there is a policy resolution adopted by respondent No.1-Department of Information and Technology to prefer non-agricultural lands by identifying the suitable sites to set up ITIR and that the present land belonging to the petitioner being agricultural land, same ought to have been left out of the acquisition. d) That the land belonging to the petitioner is situated within 100 meters of the gramatana limits which according to the circulars issued by the respondent-State, recommends exclusion from acquisition. e) That on consideration of the objection when the respondent could exclude 11 guntas of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 land there is no justification for them to have acquired the remaining extent of land. f) That the respondents have adopted pick and choose method in acquiring the land. Hence, seeks for allowing of the writ petition. 3. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- KIADB submits that the total extent of land acquired under the aforesaid notifications is about 800 acres and he submits that the allotment of the lands so acquired is in the progress. Referring to the location of the property claimed by the petitioner in a sketch, learned counsel for the respondent- KIADB submits that said the land forms integral part of the entire scheme and therefore, exclusion cannot be done. He also refers to order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.3667/2023 clubbed with WP.No.16422/2022 and WP.No.12961/2023 and submits the very same notifications on identical and similar grounds raised by the petitioner therein has been dismissed upholding the acquisition. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. Prakash R.B, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Chandrachud.A, learned counsel - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 appearing for respondent No.1; Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 5 and Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the records. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner is non consideration of objections filed to the preliminary notification and delay in issuance of final notification. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of proceedings conducted by the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28(3) at page 235 of the writ petition which read as under: 58 24 5-07 .ಾಜಣ ೇ ೊಾಂನಪ . ಾಜಣ ೊಾಂನಪ ಾಕಮ .ಾಜ ಣ .ಾಜಣ ೇll ೊಾಂಜನಪ, .ಾಜಣ ೊಾಂನಪ, ಾಕಮ .ಾಜಣ ಾಂಕ 19.01.2022 ರಂದು ಪ#ಕರಣವನು% ಕೂ&ಸ ಾ(ತು. *ಾ+ೆಾರಾದ .ಾಜಣ ೊಾಂಜನಪ ಇವರ ಪರ-ಾ& ಮಗ /#ೕ.ಆನಂದ 1ಾಗೂ ಇೊ%ಬ3 *ಾ+ೆಾರಾದ ಾಕಮ .ಾಜಣ ಇವರು 1ಾಜಾ& ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ8ೆ ಒ:;ೆ ಇರುವ<ಲ>-ೆಂದು ?@Aರು+ಾBೆ. ಾಂಕ 24.01.2019 ರAzÀÄ «CಾರDೆ;ೆ *ಾ+ೆಾರಾದ .ಾಜಣ ಪರ ಮಗ ಆನಂದ ಮತುB ಮಗಳF ಮುGಕಮ 1ಾಜಾ& ಆHೇಪDೆಯನು% ಪJ/ೕKಸ ಾ(ತು. ಸMಳ ಪJ/ೕಲೆ ಾಡ ಾ&ೆ. ಈ ಸ-ೆP ನಂಬQ ನ 0-11 ಗುಂRೆ SABೕಣPದ ಜTೕGನK> -ಾಸದ ಮೆಗಳF ಇರುವ<ದJಂದ 0-11 ಗುಂRೆ SABೕಣPದ ಜTೕನನು% ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ ಕ#ಮಂದ 1ೊರತುಪA ಉ@8ೆ SABೕಣPದ ಜTೕನನು% 'ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ ಪಸಲು ಆೇ/Aೆ. ಎW.ಆQ.ಾಗಾX ಎಂಬುವರು ಾಂಕ 13.02.2019 ರಂದು ಆHೇಪDೆ ಅP ಸK>A, ಸ.ನಂ.24 ರK> 2-21 1/2 ಎಕೆ SABೕಣPದ ಜTೕನು ತಮ ಏ8ೈಕ ಜTೕಾ&ದು\, ಈ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ8ೆ ಒ:;ೆ ಇಲ>-ೆಂದು ?@Aರು+ಾBೆ. /#ೕಮ?.ಾಕ]ಮ 8ೋಂ ಜTೕGನK> ಕೃ_ ಕಸುಬು ಾ8ೊಂಡು ೕವನ GವPಹDೆ ಾಡು?Bದು\, ಈ ಜTೕGK> ಾ#a bೆcೆಯನು% ಇdeದು\, ವಷP ಪg?P bೆcೆ ಇರುತBೆ. ಒcೆhಯ ಫಲವತB+ೆB(ಂದ ಕೂರುತBೆ. ಇದJಂದ ಬರುವ ಆಾಯವ< 1ೆCಾj&ದು\, ವ]ವ5ಾಯ ಟeೆ ಬದK ಕಸುಬು ತಮ;ೆ ;ೊ?Bಲ>-ೆಂದು, ತಮ ಆABಯು ಾರುಕRೆe bೆ ೆ ಎಕೆ ಒಂದ8ೆ ರೂ.1,50,00,000/-ಗ@&ಂತ 1ೆCಾj& ಇರುವ<ಾ&, ಈ ಜTೕನು ಟeೆ ಬದK ವ]ವ5ೆM ಇಲ>-ೆಂದು ?@A, ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ ಕ#ಮಂದ 8ೈಡಲು 8ೋJರು+ಾBೆ. /#ೕ..ಾಜಣ ೇ ೊಾಂಜನಪ ಎಂಬುವರು ಾಂಕ 13.02.2019 ರಂದು ಆHೇಪDೆ ಅP ಸK>A, ಸ.ನಂ.24 ರK> 2-21 1/2 ಎಕೆ SABೕಣPದ ಜTೕನು ತಮ ಏ8ೈಕ ಜTೕಾ&ದು\, ಈ ಜTೕGನK> ಕೃ_ ಕಸುಬು ಾ8ೊಂಡು ೕವನ GವPಹDೆ ಾಡು?Bದು\, ಈ ಜTೕGK> ಾ#a bೆcೆಯನು% ಇdeದು\, ವಷP ಪg?P bೆcೆ ಇರುತBೆ. ಒcೆhಯ ಫಲವತB+ೆB(ಂದ ಕೂರುತBೆ. ಇದJಂದ ಬರುವ ಆಾಯವ< 1ೆCಾj&ದು\, ವ]ವ5ಾಯ ಟeೆ ಬದK ಕಸುಬು ತಮ;ೆ ;ೊ?Bಲ>-ೆಂದು, ತಮ ಆABಯು ಾರುಕRೆe bೆ ೆ ಎಕೆ ಒಂದ8ೆ ರೂ.1,50,00,000/-ಗ@&ಂತ 1ೆCಾj& ಇರುವ<ಾ&, ಈ ಜTೕನು ಟeೆ ಬದK ವ]ವ5ೆM ಇಲ>-ೆಂದು ?@A, ಭೂ5ಾ67ೕನ ಕ#ಮಂದ 8ೈಡಲು 8ೋJರು+ಾBೆ. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 6. Perusal of the aforesaid objections raised by the petitioner as found at Column No.6 of the aforesaid proceedings would indicate that only objection raised by the petitioner is that she carrying on the agricultural activities in the acquired land and the value of the land per acre being in excess of Rs.1,50,000/- and that there are houses, and other structure existing in the land which is the only source of their livelihood. 7. Perusal of the response of Special Land Acquisition Officer found at Column No.7 of the said proceedings would indicate that the same has been considered and an extent of 11 guntas of land has been excluded. No ground as sought to be made out in this petition have been raised in the objections as such there is no question of non consideration of the same. 8. From the facts referred to above, more particularly with regard to the very location of the property found in the sketch produced by the respondent-KIADB, it is clear that the land belonging to the petitioner forms integral part of the entire scheme. 9. Further the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.3667-2023 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 connected with W.P.Nos.16422/2022 and 12961/2023, which were filed by the petitioners seeking quash of the very same notifications which are subject matter of this writ petition, taking note of the identical fact situation of the matter and the order of this Court passed in the case of OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF UP AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 6 SCC 1 in the case of SMT.C.N.SHARADA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS has come to the conclusion that the objections raised by the petitioner were indeed considered and the conclusion thereby arrived at cannot be held one without application of mind. As regards the delay of 12 years between the issuance of preliminary notification and final notification the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking into consideration of the fact that the majority of the land owners had voluntarily accepted the acquisition and agreed to receive the compensation and since the challenge to the acquisition was by the miniscule portion of the land owners, held that the same would not be a ground for quashing the notifications and accordingly dismissed the said writ petitions confirming the acquisition. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5412 WP No. 20737 of 2022 10. Thus, in view of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench referred to above wherein contentions as raised in the present petition having been adverted to resulting in dismissal of the writ petition confirming the acquisition, this Court in the fact situation of the present case do not deem it appropriate to take a view different from the one taken in the aforesaid order by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the challenge to the acquisition is rejected. 11. At this juncture, it is submitted that the award has already been passed and award amount has been deposited, if so reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy with regard to the receiving the compensation as may be available under law, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK