- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.24825 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAMAIAH, S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT: DODDA JALA VILLAGE, BENGALURU-562 157, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY & COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - II (BMICP), KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 3. M/S METRO NIRVAN, THRIVENI - C1, 2ND FLOOR, S.V ROAD, SANTA CRUZ, MUMBAI-400054, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI KULDEEP KALLO, S/O SHRI P.N KALLO, REP. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER, SHRI CHIRANJEEVI RAKESH. 4. SHRI ACHYUTH KUMAR SHARMA, S/O. BHARATH PRASAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT: #113/3, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, KAVERIPURA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. 5. SMT ANJINAMMA W/O B. P. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561211. 6. SHRI. R. HANUMANTHE GOWDA, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 7. SHRI. R. ARUN KUMAR, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 ARE R/AT: NO.35 DODDAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562157. 8. SHRI. BYRAPPA S/O. JAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT: KODIHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 562123. 9. SMT. RATHNAMMA HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT: KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 562123. 10. SHRI. VISHWAS GOWDA, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA N, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT: KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 562123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. S. KALYAN S. BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R4 TO R10) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. KIADB/LAQ/1379/2025-26 AS PER ANNX-A, DATED 22.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DIRECTING DISBURSEMENT OF THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for the following reliefs: (a) ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order No. KIADB/LAQ/1379/2025-26 as per Annexure-A dated 22.07.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Land Acquisition Officer directing disbursement of the entire compensation amount to the 3rd respondent; (b) TO ISSUE a Writ of Mandamus and direct the 2nd Respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the jurisdictional Civil Court (LAC Court) and further to direct the 2nd Respondent - Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation amount in the competent Civil Court (LAC Court) till disposal of the dispute by the competent Reference Court; (c) TO GRANT such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), whereby the compensation pertaining to several lands in Konnaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, was directed to be disbursed in favour of respondent No.3 (M/s. Metro Nirvan). 3. The petitioner claims that under an agreement of sale dated 02.12.1998, executed by respondent No.4 (Achyuth Kumar Sharma) in respect of the subject lands, substantial consideration was paid by the petitioner. A compromise decree was subsequently passed in O.S.No.129/2018 in a suit for specific performance on 29.03.2021 and E.P.No.18/2021 for execution of the sale deed is pending consideration. The petitioner also submitted representation on 09.01.2025 before the SLAO seeking disbursement of compensation in his favour. 4. The undisputed facts are narrated as under : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 (i) O.S.No.693/2023 filed by respondent No.4, wherein an interim direction was issued to deposit the compensation in the Civil Court. (ii) Writ Petition No.15842/2025 was filed by respondent No.3 challenging the said direction in O.S.No.693/2023, which is pending consideration and an interim order is passed. (iii) The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 03.11.2023 allowed the mutation in favour of respondent No.3. (iv) Revision Petition Nos.221/2023 and 223/2023 are dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.07.2024. 5. Respondent No.3 claims title under a registered sale deed dated 06.02.2014 executed by Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Delhi, pursuant to the court auction. Respondent No.4 had contested the said auction, but his application was dismissed. A company appeal preferred by respondent No.4 against the dismissal of his application to set aside the auction was dismissed, and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 Leave to Appeal (C) No.16054/2017. Respondent No.3 claims continued possession and mutation entry in his name since 2023. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite pending civil and writ proceedings, SLAO directed to release of the entire compensation amount to respondent No.3, which according to the petitioner, is contrary to Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act, 1966'). The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the SLAO and to direct reference of the dispute to the Civil Court (LAC Court) for adjudication, with a direction to deposit the compensation amount before that Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the SLAO has totally ignored the agreement dated 02.12.1998, the compromise decree dated 29.03.2021 in O.S.No.129/2018 and E.P.No.18/2021, as well as the statutory mandate of Section 29 of the KIAD Act, 1966, which requires reference of such disputes to the Civil Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 7. The petition is opposed by respondent No.3, who contends that pursuant to the auction sale dated 06.02.2014, he has become the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property, and that the auction has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The mutation entry made in his name on 03.11.2023 was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.07.2024. It is contended that the petitioner's decree in O.S.No.129/2018 is subsequent to the auction and obtained in collusion with respondent No.4, who had no subsisting title. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that he had filed Caveat No.16732/2025, but despite this, his caveat was not put up and the petitioner obtained interim order dated 09.06.2025 without notice to the caveator-respondent. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point arises for consideration is as to "Whether the impugned order passed by SLAO warrants any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case?" - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 9. The record reveals that respondent No.3 traces his title under the auction sale dated 06.02.2014 executed by the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Delhi, followed by the mutation which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 03.11.2023 upheld by Deputy Commissioner on 30.07.2024. 10. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the compromise decree dated 29.03.2021 in O.S.No.129/2018 against respondent No.4, whose ownership had already been divested pursuant to the 2014 auction sale. Multiple suits, writ petitions between the parties are pending including O.S.No.693/2023 and W.P.No.15842/2025. The appropriate Forum for adjudication is Civil Court, where evidence may be led and competing claims of title properly examined. On this ground alone, petition stumbles for maintainability. 11. The petitioner has invoked Section 29 of the KIAD Act, 1966, to say that where there is dispute regarding apportionment/title among claimants, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 matter is to be referred to the competent "Civil Court". However, the material placed by respondent No.3 shows that the SLAO has considered the rival claims and passed an order under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, recognizing respondent No.3 claim for compensation. Even assuming the dispute arises, the statutory mechanism envisages resolution through reference/adjudication, not by converting the writ court into the court of first instance on title. While respondent No.3 contends that caveat was filed and alleges suppression while obtaining the interim relief, this Court refrains from entering the findings on that issue. Since the civil suit in O.S.No.693/2023 and writ petition regarding the compensation are already pending, and the KIAD Act provides an adequate mechanism, the petitioner has adequate alternate remedy. Hence, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 has already been declared as owner by way of auction sale in his - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42397 WP No. 24825 of 2025 favour and the challenge to the auction sale by respondent No.4 has attained finality. The petitioner who claims under an agreement of sale said to have been executed by respondent No.4 cannot have a title than what was available to respondent No.4. In that circumstance, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA SMJ; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16