- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB WA No. 238 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- 2, KIADB, NO. 39, SHANTHI GRUHA BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURI-560 001. 2. SMT. RATNAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. SRI SRIKANTH K, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 4. SRI B V HARISH, S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB WA No. 238 of 2025 R/OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUQA, BENGALURU-562 149. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS b) PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13.07.2022 PASSED IN WP No-12996/2022 (LA-KIADB) AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WP ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 914 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB] and another have filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12996/2022 (LA-KIADB). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB WA No. 238 of 2025 3. The said writ petition was preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 4, impugning the Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 [KIAD Act], for acquisition of petitioners' land measuring 01 acre falling in Survey No.40/335, situated in Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk [subject property]. 4. The writ petitioners claim that, on 03.11.2006, a Notification was issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, for acquisition of certain lands, including the subject land. The Final Notification came to be issued on 07.05.2007. However, thereafter, the KIADB took no further steps to either take over possession of the subject land or pay the compensation for the same. 5. In the aforesaid back drop, after several years, the writ petitioners filed the aforementioned petition, inter alia, praying that the acquisition of the subject land be declared as lapsed. 6. The learned Single Judge noted that similar writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land under the Preliminary and the Final notifications, had been allowed. He noted that some of the orders were subject matter of appeals before the Division Bench of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB WA No. 238 of 2025 this Court [WA No.1268/2021 and WA Nos.6387-6390/2017]. The said appeals were also dismissed and the acquisition notice had been quashed on the ground as set up by the writ petitioners. KIADB had also sought Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court against the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court (SLP No. 25239/2018). However, the same was dismissed as well. 7. It is contended on behalf of the KIADB that the writ petition was required to be rejected as it was highly belated. It is submitted that Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007. However, the writ petitioners had filed the writ petition almost 16 years later, in the year 2022. 8. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. The cause of action for the writ petition, essentially, was delay on the part of the KIADB in taking any further steps pursuant to the Final Notification. However, since the KIADB has not taken any steps as to either acquire the possession of the subject property or to pay compensation, the writ petitioners were constrained to approach the Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38864-DB WA No. 238 of 2025 9. The learned counsel also does not dispute that the appeals against similar orders had been rejected and KIADB had not succeeded to prevail before the Supreme Court as well. It is also not disputed that the award was required to be passed within a reasonable period. 10. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge and the appeal, is accordingly, dismissed. 11. Needless to say that the KIADB is not precluded from issuing any fresh notification, in the event, it finds that it is necessary to acquire the subject land for public purposes. 12. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37