- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SMT. NETHRAVATHI, W/O SRI S M RAMU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RA/T NO. 62, SINGAIAHANAPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE 560 048. …APPELLANT (BY RAJARAM.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER. 4. M/S. MANIPAL ETA INFOTECH, NO. 10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, OPP. MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/06/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.5545/2019 b)PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.5545/2019 (LA-KIADB). The appellant had filed the said writ petition, inter-alia praying as under: "Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to: (1) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the Respondents to hand over the land measuring 15 guntas in Survey No.24, Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 Taluk measuring 3 acres 29 guntas and quash the Notification dated 23.4.2004 and 7.5.2004 which are produced and marked as Annexure- M and M1 since the said Notifications are already quashed in WP Nos. 43633 of 2004 (KIADB) and WP Nos. 18918 c/w 19605 and 24851/2004 (LA-KIADB). (2) Issue a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent to hand over the said piece of land measuring 15 guntas in favour of the Petitioner situated at Survey No.24, Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. (3) Issue such other writ or directions that this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the above case." 2. The appellant states that she is the Power of Attorney Holder for the legal heirs of Sri.Lingappa and Smt.Chikka Muniyamma, who are the land owners of 15 guntas of land pursuant to grant in their favour. The said land falling in Sy.No.24, Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was the subject matter of acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [KIAD Act]. The Notification under Section 28(4) KIAD was issued on 23.04.2004. It is material to note that the subject land was also subjected to acquisition proceeding, which had commenced by issuance of a notice under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act published on 15.01.2001. However, it is stated that the said acquisition proceedings were thereafter quashed. The Government of Karnataka had thereafter issued the notification dated 23.04.2004, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 which was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition. The said notification was followed by the final notification issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act on 07.05.2004. 3. It is the appellant’s case that although the lands were acquired, the same have not been used for the past several years and therefore the same stand released from acquisition. The appellant has also filed photographs of the subject land, which indicate that the same is not developed and is lying vacant. 4. The appellant claimed that the land is required to be returned to the original owners/legal heirs. The learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay. 5. We do not find that any interference with the impugned order is necessary. We have also considered the appellant's challenge to the impugned notification and find no merit in the same. In terms of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, the subject land stands vested with the Government of Karnataka, free from all encumbrances, on the publication of the notice issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. It is well settled that once the land vested with the State, it cannot revert back to the original owners notwithstanding that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 same has not been utilized for the purpose for which the land was acquired. In the case of C.Padma and Others v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. and Others : (1997) 2 SCC 627, the Supreme Court has held as under: "5. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that when by operation of Section 44-B read with Section 40 of the Act, the public purpose ceased to be existing, the acquisition became bad and therefore, the GO was bad in law. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that after the notification in GOR 1392 dated 17-10-1962 was published, the acquisition proceeding had become final, the compensation was paid to the appellants' father and thereafter the lands stood vested in the State. In terms of the agreement as contemplated in Chapter VII of the Act, the Company had delivered possession subject to the terms and conditions thereunder. It is seen that one of the conditions was that on cessation of the public purpose, the lands acquired would be surrendered to the Government. In furtherance thereof, the lands came to be surrendered to the Government for resumption. The lands then were allotted to SRVS Ltd., 5th respondent which is also a subsidiary amalgamated company of the original company. Therefore, the public purpose for which acquisition was made was substituted for another public purpose. Moreover, the question stood finally settled 32 years ago and hence the writ petition cannot be entertained after three decades on the ground that either - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 original purpose was not public purpose or the land cannot be used for any other purpose." 6. In Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal : (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Supreme Court had held that any person in possession of the land after the same is vested with the State, is required to be treated as a trespasser. We consider it apposite to set out the following extracts of the said decision: “244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression “physical possession” is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and Section 24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances. 245. The question which arises whether there is any difference between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the expression “physical possession” used in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37327-DB WA No. 1037 of 2024 Section 24(2). As a matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking the possession meant only physical possession of the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over physical possession of the land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government is not supposed to put some other person or the police force in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired. The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State. The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner that is the State Government in the case." 7. In view of the above, the appeal is unmerited. Accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/-, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21