- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 13786 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRAPPA GUJJALLARA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, R/O HOUSE NO. 12, VALMIKI NAGAR, NADUVINA HALLI, DASANAHALLI, HADAGALI, BELLARY, KARNATAKA- 583 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO 49, 4 AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST DIVISION, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUSTION OFFICER PLAT NO. A (1-B) GROUND FLOOR, KAROURU INDUSTRIAL AREA, P B ROAD, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 DAVANAGERE- 577 006. 3. TAHASILDAR HARAPPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE- 583 131. 4. S S BAKESH MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAMNUR SUGARS LTD DUGGAVATHI, HARAPAHALLLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE- 583 137. 5. SHAMSONS DISTILLERIES LTD DUGGAVATHI, HARAPAHALLLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE- 583 137. (PRIVATE COMPANY REGISTERED AS PER COMPANY ACT 1956) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R3; SRI. P V CHANRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD 19.12.2002 TO AN EXTENT OF 121.63 ACRES IN SY NO. 236/C OF DUGGAVATI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST, ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. S.I.260/SPQ/2001 UNDER SEC 28(D) OF THE KIADB AS THE SAME IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME CAME TO BE ACQUIRED ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 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 Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the Notification dated 19.11.2002 to the extent of 1 acre in Survey No.236/C of Duggavati, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District issued by respondent No.1 under Section 28(D) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act'). 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Survey No.236 CP-27 situated at Duggavati, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District measuring to an extent of 1 acre granted to him under a Grant Order dated 14.01.1999 issued by the Tahsildar, Harappanahalli. It is contended that the grant was made after due spot inspection and verification of self-cultivation and a grant certificate was accordingly issued. It is further stated that the petitioner subsequently came to know that the KIADB has mutated its name in respect of the said land and that, without acquisition proceedings or taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act') it had executed a Lease Agreement dated 02.01.1998 in favour of one Shamson Distilleries and Shamanur Sugars (respondent Nos.4 and 5). It is contended that the KIADB had no jurisdiction to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 execute a Lease Agreement in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 6. A perusal of the records indicates that petitioner claims to be a grantee pursuant to the grant made by respondent No.3-Tahsildar on 14.01.1999. However, it is relevant to note that even prior to the said grant, a Lease Agreement had already been executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 02.01.1998. Therefore, as on the date of the grant in favour of the petitioner, the land was already subject to a subsisting lease in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, and no vacant land was available for fresh grant. 7. Without going into the merits or demerits of the petitioner's claim regarding entitlement to the property, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition, under the guise of challenging the Notification dated 19.11.2002, is not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43115 WP No. 13786 of 2024 8. The petitioner's claim under the alleged grant involves disputed questions of title and possession, which require adjudication before the Competent Civil Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5