- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36730 WP No. 14830 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.14830 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P.NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE PENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT. BAGALURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 149. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR J.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO.49, 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560001. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, EAST WING, RACE COURSE, BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36730 WP No. 14830 of 2025 (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1, SRI H.N. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR RECORDS (B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 32 SPQ 2025, DATED 05.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, UNDER SECTION 1(3) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.506 OLD SY.NO.176/175 OF BAGALURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notification issued by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short “the Act”). 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar J.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.Rajakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri H.N. Vasudevan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36730 WP No. 14830 of 2025 3. The petitioner apprehends that the property of the petitioner would be taken away without complying with Section 28(2), (3) or 4 of the Act. The apprehension of the petitioner has no rationale. Leaving open all the contentions, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate fora at the appropriate time. It is needless to observe that the petitioner would not be disposessed except in a manner known to law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9