- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 26696 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: JOSEPH MATHEW AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE P.V MATHEW, NO. 311, 17TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, R.T NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHA KALAPPA B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. BENGALURU METRO RAILCORPORATION III FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR J. RAVI SHANKAR 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO2, KIADB METRO, 14/3 MAHARISHI ARVINDA BHAVAN, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH A S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. HARISH N N, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES/NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURES-A AND B i.e., NOTICE DATED 19.09.2018 BEARING NUMBER KIADB/METRO/LAND ACQUISITION/ORR ISRO-3/2018-19 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ARISING OUT OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 140 SPQ 2018 DATED 28.08.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(2) OF THE KIADB ACT, 1966 AND NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 13.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2018 BEARING NUMBER KIADB/METRO/LAND ACQUISITION/ORR-ISRO-3/2018- 2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ARISING OUT OF NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 140 SPQ 2018 DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(6) OF THE KIADB ACT, 1966 AND NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 06.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 OR BY ISSUING ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAYBE INSOFAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned notices/notifications at Annexures-A and B i.e., Notice dated 19.09.2018 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR ISRO-3/2018-19 issued by Respondent No. 3 arising out of the Notification bearing No. CI 140 SPQ 2018 dated 28.08.2018 issued under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 13.09.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 and Notice dated 12.12.2018 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-3/2018- 2019 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification bearing No. CI 140 SPQ 2018 dated 28.11.2018 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 06.12.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 or by issuing any other appropriate writ or direction as the case maybe insofar petitioner concerned only. b. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned notices/notifications at Annexures-C and D Notice dated 08.03.2019 bearing number KIADB/Metro/land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-3/2018-19 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 bearing No. CI 50 SPQ 2019 dated 07.03.2019 issued under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 07.03.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 and notice dated 04.06.2019 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-4/2019-20 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification bearing No. CI 50 SPQ 2019 dated 30.05.2019 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIADB Act, 1966 issued by Respondent No.1 or by issuing any other appropriate writ or direction as the case maybe insofar petitioner concerned only. c. In the alternative, issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to take necessary steps to denotify the above-mentioned notifications. d. Award cost of the Petition and compensation for non-payment of compensation on account of the acquisition in 2018 and 2019, respectively; e. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri. Harish N.N., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing site No.94 measuring 2,400 square feet (223 sq. meters) situated at Karthik Nagar, LRDE Employees Housing Cooperative Society's Layout, Doddanekkundi Village, Krishnapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (presently Bengaluru East Taluk), Bengaluru (for short 'the schedule property'). Under the preliminary notification followed by the final notification, respondent No.1 acquired the portion of the petitioner's schedule property for the benefit of respondent No.2-Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (for short 'BMRCL'). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to a change in the metro alignment, the petitioner's land is no longer required for the project of respondent No.2-BMRCL. Similarly placed petitioner had approached this Court in the case of JANANI SUBRAMANIAN Vs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 (JANANI SUBRAMANIAN), wherein this Court quashed the acquisition based on the categorical admission of BMRCL. 5. Respondent No.2 has taken an identical stand in the present case and in the statement of objections at paragraph No.4 unequivocally stated as under: "4. It is submitted that due to a change in the alignment of the Metro line and consequential changes in the land plan, the petitioner's property, along with other properties, was found to be not required for the Bangalore Metro Rail project. Accordingly, BMRCL, by its letter dated 29.07.2019, requested the SLAO-KIADB to de-notify the said property of petitioner from acquisition. BMRCL has no objection to either the quashing of the acquisition notifications or the issuance of a notification under Section-4 of the KIAD Act, 1966 in this regard." 6. Respondent No.3 in the statement of objections at paragraph No.6 has stated as under: 1 WP.No.15526/2022 (LA-KIADB) D.D.23.11.2022 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 "6) It is submitted that, all things happen the 2nd respondent beneficiary has informed that in view of the change of circumstances and change of alignment the property in question is not required for its project. Under these peculiar circumstances this respondents could not take any further proceedings because the land is already notified and vest with the Government and beneficiary the matter was placed before the Board to take decision. The Board decided to exclude only certain properties and as the land in question as already Final Notification was issued and possession notice was also issue as such the Board was not in position to take any decision as the notifications were issued by the state Government. As such state Government has to take a decision in this aspect by issuing notification in the manner known to law until and unless such notification is issued, the acquisition notifications will remain in force." 7. The core undisputed fact emerging from the objections of respondents No.2 and 3 is that the petitioner's land is no longer required for the metro project due to a change in the metro alignment, and BMRCL itself has recommended denotification to the KIADB. The sole - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 purpose for which the acquisition was invoked, the beneficiary unequivocally states that the land is not required, the very foundation of the acquisition ceases to exist. 8. This Court in JANANI SUBRAMANIAN's case (supra), has already quashed identically situated notifications on the same stand of BMRCL. The present case stands on no different footing, and parity demands identical relief. 9. The submission of respondent No.3 that denotification must be initiated by the State Government does not dilute the admitted factual position that the acquisition purpose has failed. 10. Therefore, in the face of clean and categorical admission and in the absence of any contrary material, this Court finds no justification to sustain the impugned notifications. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 ORDER i) The writ petitioner is allowed. ii) The impugned notifications dated 28.08.2018, 28.11.2018, 07.03.2019 and 30.05.2019 and the consequential notices dated 19.09.2018, 13.09.2018, 12.12.2018, 06.12.2018, 08.03.2019, 07.03.2019 and 04.06.2019 are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10