- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.13583 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SMT. JAGADAMBA W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASASOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01 BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, #49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KANEEJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD #49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 KANEEJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, (TECHNICAL) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562143. 5. SMT. B.N. PRATHIBAVATHI W/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O KALLHATTIPALYA VILLAGE, UDUGUNTE POST, SOLUR HOBLI-572153, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.CI. 72 SPQ 2019 ON 05.11.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 72 SPQ 2019, DATED 19.05.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BY ISSUING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the preliminary notification dated 05.11.2020 and the final notification dated 19.05.2021 issued under Section 28 (1) and 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short), insofar as they relate to the land bearing Sy No. 9/2A of Honnenahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner's husband had purchased land in Sy. No. 9/2A, the petitioner has been in actual possession of Sy. No. 9/2B, on account of an alleged interchange of survey numbers and katha entries between Sy. No. 9/2A and 9/2B, which has also been reflected in the joint survey conducted by the KIADB Authority. It is contended that the petitioner had raised objections under Section 28 (2) of the KIAD Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 highlighting the (i) survey interchange, the (ii) gramatana- adjacent nature of the land (iii) the pendency of proceedings under Section 49A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, these objections were not considered, and that the authorities proceeded mechanically to issue the final notification. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 justifies the acquisition, contending that the notification was strictly issued on the basis of the revenue records in which the petitioner is shown as kathedar of Sy. No. 9/2A and that the petitioner herself has produced the sale deed and the RTC for Sy. No. 9/2A, and that her claim over Sy. No.9/2B is unsupported by title documents. The objections were duly heard and rejected under Section 28(3), that the possession has already been taken and vested in the State under Section 28(7) of the KIAD Act. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner’s grievance, if any, regarding the survey identity, must be agitated before the competent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 revenue/civil forum and cannot be a ground to invalidate a lawful acquisition. 4. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arise for consideration is, whether the contention of the petitioner regarding the interchange of survey number is a matter which this Court has to consider under Article 226 of the Constitution? 5. The petitioner has contended that there is an interchange of survey number between Sy. No 9/2A and 9/2B. However, the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality or procedural infirmity in the acquisition of Sy. No. 9/2A. The notifications have been issued on the basis of the existing revenue records, the petitioner's own document show her title to Sy. No. 9/2A, the objections have been fully considered under Section 28(3) and the possession has been taken and vested in the State. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50769 WP No. 13583 of 2021 dispute regarding interchange of survey numbers is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the competent Revenue Authority or the competent Civil Court and cannot be a ground to unsettle a complete acquisition. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23