- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.27360 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SANE VEERA KISHORE REDDY S/O. MR. SANE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1-1348/A, SRINAGAR COLONY EXTENSION, NEAR SAVEERA HOSPITAL, GEORGEPET, ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 004. 2. MR. SANE BRAHMANANDA REDDY S/O. MR. S. ONNUR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12-4-34, VIDYUTH NAGAR, ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONICS NIKETAN 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BIOTECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, CGC FOR R-1; SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-2 & R-3; SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1) AND 28(1) OF THE KIAD ACT RESPECTIVELY BEARING NO.CI 198 SPQ (e) 2021, BENGALURU DATED 18/03/2022 IN SO FOR THE EXTENT OF LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notifications dated 18.03.2022 (Annexures-B and C) issued under Sections 3 (1) and 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) and the final notification dated 07.03.2023 issued under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act, insofar as they relate to the petitioners’ land. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Respondent No.1-the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, through its Department of Information and Technology, had floated a policy for setting up Information Technology Investment Regions (ITIRs) with the objective of promoting investment in Information Technology (IT), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES), Electronic Hardware Manufacturing (EHM) units. Under the said policy, the State Governments were required to play a lead role in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 identifying suitable sites, preferably non-agricultural land and to enact an enabling legal and administrative framework for grant of all clearances and permissions by the ITIR Management Board. 4. Pursuant to the said policy, respondent No.2- State Government initiated the first ITIR project in Karnataka, proposing to acquire an extent approximately 10,500 acres (4,059 meters) in the vicinity of Bangalore International Airport at Devanahalli, which proposal was approved in the State Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet also resolved to constitute a State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, and a Management Board, and vested the SLEC with the responsibility of taking decisions relating to land acquisition for the ITIR project. However, respondent No.1-Union of India subsequently withdrew and discontinued the ITIR policy by order dated 16.12.2017, which is not disputed by the respondent-KIADB or the State. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the five years after such discontinuation, respondent No.2 proceeded to issue the impugned notifications dated 18.03.2022 and 07.03.2023 under Sections 28 (1) and 28 (4) of the KIAD Act, proposing acquisition of 121 acres 26 ½ guntas in the villages of Beerasandra, Byradenahalli and Nagadenahalli of Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, for the very same ITR project, despite the foundational policy having been withdrawn in 2017. 6. It is further submitted that at no point of time, the petitioners were never consulted or issued notice and that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of the previous owner notwithstanding that the petitioners have purchased the scheduled property much prior to the preliminary notification. The petitioners, who claim to be medical entrepreneurs, had purchased the land abutting the National Highway for establishing a medical facility in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 the developing region of Devanahalli, however without any communication or opportunity to file objections, the land was notified and included in the acquisition proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the KIADB submits that the present case is fairly covered by the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Appaswamigari Ramachandra and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and others1 (Appaswamigari Ramachandra) wherein the landowners, who were similarly not served with the notice and who were denied an opportunity of objections, had approached this Court. This Court, found that the order passed under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act suffered from absence of consideration of the objections, and accordingly, set aside the final notification under Section 28 (4) and directed the petitioners therein to file objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), and directing the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. It 1 W.P. No.2733/2024 D.D. 23.10.2024 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 is therefore submitted that a similar order be passed in the present writ petition as well. 8. This Court has considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the acquisition proceedings issued under Sections 28 (1) and 28 (4) of the KIAD Act are sustainable when the underlying public purpose ITIR project (ceased to exist) upon withdrawal of the ITIR policy in 2017?” 10. The decision placed by the learned counsel for the KIADB in Appaswamigari Ramachandra is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. The Court, in Appaswamigari Ramachandra’s case, found that the acquisition suffered only from the defect of non- issuance of notice under Sections 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the KIAD Act, while the public purpose itself remained intact and subsisting and therefore, the defect was curable by remitting the matter for consideration of objections. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 11. In the present case, however, the admitted position is that the very foundation of the acquisition has ceased to exist. The ITIR policy of 2008 stood withdrawn and discontinued by the Union Government on 16.12.2017 and all the activities under the policy had been closed long before the issuance of preliminary and final notification in 2022 and 2023. The respondents have not produced any material to demonstrate that the ITIR project was revived, re-approved, or re-validated under any subsequent policy decision, statute or cabinet resolution. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo before this Court producing the copy of the memo filed by respondent No.1 in W.P. No.3667/2023 on 14.07.2023. The memo filed by respondent No.1 reads thus: “It is submitted as follows. As per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, directing to secure the status with regard to the ITIR Policy Resolution 2008, the direction of the Hon’ble Court was intimated to the Ministry of Electronics. Hardware Division, the said department - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 has replied a mail with regard to the status of the policy. The copy of the same is annexed to this memo. Hence this memo.” 13. The respondent was directed to get present status with regard to ITR policy resolution, 2008 and the Ministry of Electronics Hardware Division replied stating that – ‘The ITIR Policy Resolution 2008, has been discontinued from 16.12.2017 and all the activities under the policy have been closed’. 14. When the public purpose ceases to exist, the power of eminent domain stands denuded, and any acquisition undertaken thereafter without jurisdiction, rendering the notification void ab initio. Therefore, unlike Appaswamigari Ramachandra, where remand served a meaningful purpose by allowing objections to be considered against an existing acquisition, a remand in the present case would be futile, as there is no legally sustainable project to which the acquisition can be anchored. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 15. Apart from the fundamental jurisdictional defect, the acquisition in the petitioners’ case also suffers from non-issuance of notice, failure to consider the ownership records and initiation of proceedings in the name of the previous owner amounts to a complete violation of Sections 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the KIAD Act and result in deprivation of the property and contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered holding that the public purpose is non-existent and that the acquisition proceedings are unsustainable. 16. In view of the above, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned preliminary notification dated 18.03.2022 and final notification dated 07.03.2023, having been issued for a non-existent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50839 WP No. 27360 of 2023 public purpose, cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed in their entirety insofar as the petitioners’ land is concerned. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78