- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 23470 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI DINESH S/O LATE PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.79, HOSADODDI GRAMA, MANCHANAYAKAHALLI, S/O LATE PRAKASH, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR- 562 019. 2. SRI. PUNEETH H.M S/O MOHAN MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 102, HOSADODDI GRAMA, MANCHANAYAKAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR- 562 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-5690 001. 4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. OFFICE AT NO. 1, MIDFORD HOUSE MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G.ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA V REDDY., SPL COUNSEL FOR R1; SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI.NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 19.12.1998 BEARING NO.CI-196-SPQ 1998 AND NOTIFICATION DATED 29.01.2023 BEARING NO.CI-196-SPQ 1998 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND AL, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT NOTIFYING THE PETITIONERS LANDS MEASURING 1 ACRE 30 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.85/1 AND 1 ACRE IN SY.NO. 148/2 (OLD SY.NO.87) OF TALAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT AS THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NULL AND VOID 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1998 bearing No. CI-196- SPQ 1998 and Notification dated 29.01.2003 bearing No.CI-196-SPQ-1998 vide Annexures-A and Al, issued by the First Respondent notifying the Petitioners' lands measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.85/1 and 1 acre in Sy.No.148/2 (old - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 Sy.No.87) of Talaguppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramangara Taluk, Ramanagar District as the acquisition proceedings have been abandoned, lapsed and null and void; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule properties. iii) Issue any other Writ or Order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Special Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. Vasanath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. Nithin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1998 and 29.01.2003, notifying the petitioners' land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Survey No.85/1 and 1 acre in Survey - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 No.148/2 (old Survey No.87) of Talaguppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk, Ramangar District (for short 'schedule properties') under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act'), no Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act has been issued. It is therefore submitted that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court wherein similar notifications were quashed, namely: i) SRI.M.R.R.SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1. ii) RAKESH BABU GOVINDAREDDY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2. iii) M.D.SHIVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3. iv) C.VALLIAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4. 1 WP.Nos.20610-20612/2016 and 21299/2016(LA-KIADB), D.D.04.11.2016 2 WP.No.12078/2025 (LA-KIADB), D.D.10.06.2025 3 WP.No.15416/2023 (LA-KIADB), D.D.28.04.2025 4 WP.No.58400/2021 (LA-KIADB), D.D.07.06.2021 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioners are subsequent transferees, the lands having gifted to them under a Gift deed dated 06.09.2023 executed after issuance of Preliminary Notification. It is therefore urged that they have no locus-standi to challenge the acquisition. It is further submitted that schedule properties are required for construction of a connecting road to the expressway near Bidadi Industrial area, and that a letter dated 30.11.2024 has been addressed to respondent No.2 seeking completion of the acquisition. 5. The contention of the respondents regarding transfer is not persuasive. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is an internal family transfer and not a third party transactions, it cannot therefore defeat their right to question the validity of sale acquisition proceedings. Hence, it cannot be treated as alienation hit by Section 28(1) or the proviso of Section 24 of the KIAD Act. It is made clear that if there is any grievance with respect to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 the gift, it would be open to seek redressal before the appropriate civil forums. 6. The scope of the present petition is therefore confined to examining the legality of the acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act. Admittedly, despite the Preliminary Notification is issued as early as in 1998, no further steps have been taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 28(3) or 28(4) of the KIAD Act. Even after more than 25 years, the respondents have failed to complete the acquisition. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act has been abandoned and have lapsed and accordingly, deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1998 issued by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44313 WP No. 23470 of 2025 Respondent No.1 and the Notification dated 29.01.2003 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act are declared to have been abandoned and lapsed and the same is hereby quashed insofar the petitioners' schedule properties are concerned. iii) This order will not come in the way of acquiring the subject properties by issuing notification afresh, in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is also reserved to the respondents- *NICE to proceed against the other respondents, in accordance with law, if there is any grievance against them. v) All the contentions in that regard are kept open. vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 *Corrected vide Court Order dated 19.12.2025