- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17646 WP No. 29385 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.29385 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: ABDUL HANNAN AHAD S/O MOHAMMED ZAHEER AGED 28 YEARS R/A NO. 80, AHAD PINNACLE GROUDN FLOOR, 5TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU 560 095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTEMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3 RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUGNA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17646 WP No. 29385 of 2024 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMETN BOARD (BMICP) 1ST FLOOR, MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 4. M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD NO.1 FORD GARDENS, OPP M G ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) 5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M G ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) …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. S.B. MATHAPATI., ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. R.V.S. NAIK., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.1999 BEARING NO. CI 19 SPQ 1998 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17646 WP No. 29385 of 2024 DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO. 249/1 OLD SY NO.249, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 01 ACRE 01 GUNTAS OUT OF 04 ACRES 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BELAVADE VILLAGE, KASAB HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT IS LAPESED/ABANDONED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17646 WP No. 29385 of 2024 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17646 WP No. 29385 of 2024 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 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 KLY CT: JL