- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13548 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRI. RADHEY SHAM AGARWAL S/O. LATE FAKIRCHAND AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT: ABHILASHA, NO.270/34, 5TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAN N.MAJAGE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.POOJA M KOORSE - HCGP FOR R1; SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.03.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE -J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 24.03.2026. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that one Mr.Ramanna was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.85 of Mindahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The legal heirs of Ramanna agreed to sell the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner and thus executed an agreement of sale dated 09.05.2017 which was duly registered. They also executed a General Power of Attorney (henceforth referred to as 'GPA') authorizing him to manage and deal with the aforesaid property. The petitioner claims that he invested a substantial sum of money and developed the land by planting 580 mango - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 trees and 80 tamarind trees and enclosed the property by barbed wire fencing supported on stone pillars. He also sunk a borewell in the aforesaid land. (ii) The petitioner claims that the aforesaid land was proposed for acquisition under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the KIAD Act') vide notification bearing No.¹L 101 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2012 dated 13.03.2012 for the formation of an industrial area. However, neither the name of Ramanna nor his legal heirs were mentioned in the preliminary notification. (iii) Thereafter, a final notification was issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 28.07.2020. Even in the final notification too, neither the name of Ramanna nor his legal heirs were mentioned. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent authorities and established the grant of the aforesaid land in favour of Ramanna and the subsequent execution of the agreement of sale and a GPA. (iv) The respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 17.12.2021 to the Tahsildar and sought for a report regarding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Ramanna. The Tahsildar submitted a report on 26.04.2022, confirming 3 acres 20 guntas of Sy.No.85 was granted to Ramanna vide grant order No.J¯ï.J£ï.r/¹.Dgï/35/1987-88 dated 08.12.1988. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 24.03.2026 to the respondent No.3 requesting the assessment of compensation for the improvements made on the land and to pay the same to him. The petitioner contends that the said request is not considered and therefore, he is before this Court seeking a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the request. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above and submitted that the respondents are bound to pass an award either in the name of Ramanna or his legal heirs or in the name of the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a GPA, which is coupled with interest in the form of an agreement of sale. He therefore submits that the respondents are bound to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 seek for a direction to consider the representation filed by him, by which he had claimed the compensation for the improvements made over the land, as he is only an agreement holder. He contends that the petitioner has no vested right, title or interest in the aforesaid property and hence he cannot compel the respondents to consider the representation dated 24.03.2026. He therefore submits that no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition and no direction can be issued to the respondent No.3 at the instance of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. A perusal of the representation dated 24.03.2026 shows that the petitioner had requested the respondent No.3 to pass an award in respect of Malkies existing on the land bearing Sy.No.85 of Mindahalli, as well as for the barbed-wire fencing and a borewell sunk in the land in question. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner being an agreement holder, that too after the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31139 WP No. 13548 of 2026 lands were notified for acquisition, has no semblance of right, title or interest to claim the compensation. If the petitioner is entitled to any right, the same has to be established before the Civil Court by seeking enforcement of the agreement of sale and GPA. He certainly cannot compel the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 24.03.2026 and release the compensation in respect of the Malkies and other improvements on the land. 7. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to the respondent No.3. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to file memo of appearance. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33