- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 27897 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI THIMMAIAH, LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MAKANAKOPPE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU DIST- 562 132 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING NRUPATHAUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.143/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUIDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGAURU-560 001. 4. ASST. COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561205. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALUU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 01. 7. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HOSAKOTE-DABASPETE SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI ROAD, DABASPETE, NELAMANGALA TQ., BENGALURU RURAL DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA FOR R1, R4 & R5, SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3, SMT. SHILPA SHA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, SRI. M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AND 5 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO RESTORE THE REVENUE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE SIDDAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH, IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO. 35/3 MEASURING 0.35 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MAKANAKUPPE VILLAGE, THYMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BY DELETING THE NAME OF KIADB WHICH WAS MUTATED VIDE MR. T2/2014-15 BY CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE INSPECTOR DTD. 21.05.2019 AND AS PER THE LETTER OF THE THASILDAR DTD. 06.03.2019 AS ANNX-C SUBMITTED BY THE R-4 TO THE R-5 UNDER ANNX-G AND H RESPECTIVELY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking a mandamus against respondent No.5 - Tahsildar to restore petitioner's name to the petition land by taking cognizance of judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P No.14729/2012. 2. The petitioner is the rightful owner of the land in question, and this fact remains undisputed. The respondent No.1 – the State initiated a process to acquire the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereafter referred to as 'KIAD Act'). This was done through a notification issued under Section 28(2) of the KIAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 Act, 1966. However, the petitioner’s ancestor, Sri Siddappa, challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P. No.14729/2012. The Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition process by an order dated 21.02.2024. Following this judgement, the petitioner, referencing the Court’s order, submitted a representation requesting the restoration of his ancestor’s name in the land records. Despite this, the petitioner alleges negligence and delay by respondent No.5, the Tahsildar, in addressing this representation. 3. In the interregnum, it appears that respondent No.7, the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the National Highways Authorities, has proceeded with acquiring the land for the highway project. An award has been deposited with the competent authority regarding this acquisition. Since interim reliefs were sought in the petition, respondent No.7 was made a party to the proceedings. Several contentious issues were raised by both the petitioner and the counsel for the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Learned counsel for respondent No.3 conceded that the writ appeal, pending since 2014, is yet to be resolved. It was further clarified by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 counsel that no interim order has been granted by the Division Bench in relation to this matter. In the absence of such an order, the petitioner rightfully claims that the acquisition proceedings have been quashed, and, as a result, the petitioner has the legal right to seek restoration of their name in the land records. 4. The petitioner’s claim against the National Highways Authorities is distinct and requires separate action. Respondent No.7, representing the National Highways, cannot be restrained from carrying out the project, as the acquisition proceedings were conducted properly and in accordance with the law. The Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authorities informed the Court that the acquisition process for the land intended for the highway project has been concluded, with the award having already been deposited with the competent authority, as evidenced in Annexure-R8 to the statement of objections. The petitioner retains the liberty to pursue further legal remedies concerning the acquisition process initiated by the National Highways, in accordance with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, which is detailed in Annexure-A. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 5. In light of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to seek the restoration of their name in the land records, given that the acquisition proceedings by the state on behalf of KIADB have been quashed. However, the petitioner’s grievance against the National Highways Authorities and the acquisition proceedings related to the highway project require independent legal remedies. ORDER i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii) Respondent No.5, the Tahsildar, is directed to take prompt action regarding the fresh representation submitted by the petitioner. The representation, which includes the order passed by this Court, shall be duly considered, and appropriate action must be taken in a timely manner excluding portion of land acquired by Respondent No.7. iii) The Tahsildar (respondent No.5) is further directed to take cognizance of the extent of the land already acquired by the Central Government and the National - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4143 WP No. 27897 of 2024 Highways Authority before making any changes to the Record of Rights . Any alterations to the RTC must take into account the land that has been legally acquired by the National Highways for its project. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20