- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17509 WP No. 32240 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. 32240 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: ABDUL HANNAN AHAD S/O MOHAMMED ZAHEER AGED 29 YEARS R/A NO. 80 AHAD PINNACLE GROUND FLOOR 5TH MAIN 2ND CROSS 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3 RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH 2ND FLOOR NRUPTHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REP BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17509 WP No. 32240 of 2024 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP), 1ST FLOOR MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 4. M/S NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., NO. 1 FORD GARDENS, OPP M G ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., NO.1 MID FORD HOUSE MID FORD GARDENS, OFF MG ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL., SRI. S.A. AHMED & SRI. MALHARA RAO., AAG DR. RAVINDRA V REDDY & SRI. SIDDHARTH 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.196.SPQ.1998 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANN-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17509 WP No. 32240 of 2024 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17509 WP No. 32240 of 2024 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17509 WP No. 32240 of 2024 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