- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11679-DB WA No. 1541 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.1541 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: MR. CHARAN RAJ M D S/O S DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KURUBAL POST, VEMGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.N.RAJESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURALI BABU M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (I.D.) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASASOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 01 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER I KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVEOLPMENT BOARD Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11679-DB WA No. 1541 of 2024 NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-1 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.4158/2023 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 11.09.2024 passed in a batch of writ petitions. For the purpose of this appeal, we are concerned with W.P.No.4158/2023 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by stating as under:- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11679-DB WA No. 1541 of 2024 “In W.P.No.4158/2023 1. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner is agricultural in nature. The contention of the petitioner is that he has no other source of income other than the said land and he has constructed a house on the land. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the acquisition be set aside. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the KIADB submits that the land where the house of the petitioner is situated is excluded from acquisition and there is no reason for leaving out the rest of the land from acquisition and prays for dismissal of the petition. 3. Admittedly, the land where the house of the petitioner is situated is not acquired. The remaining land is agricultural in nature and KIADB is of the opinion that the same is required for setting up an industrial area. I do not see any reason to interfere in the decision of the State to acquire the property. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.” 2. The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was that the land of the petitioner could not have been acquired as he has no other source of income. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11679-DB WA No. 1541 of 2024 3. The case of the respondent No.2 – KIADB was that the house of the petitioner has been excluded from acquisition and there is no reason for leaving out rest of the land from acquisition. The learned Single Judge has accepted the plea taken by the KIADB and dismissed the petition. 4. Though an attempt has been made to argue beyond the scope of the writ petition, we are of the view, because of the limited challenge in the writ petition, which has been dismissed, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10