- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36588 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: UMME HANI FATIMA W/O. SYED ABDUL WAJID AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.244, 2ND CROSS, MANGO GARDEN LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE CROSS, NEAR DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH 2ND FLOOR, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 1ST FLOOR, MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 4. M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., NO.1 FORD GARDENS, OPP M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT). 5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD. NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF. MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. RAVINDRA V REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1; SRI. NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.1999 BEARING NO.CI:196:SPQ:1998 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the preliminary notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:1998 dated 03.07.1999 issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the KIAD Act') and to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.249/2 (old Sy.No.249), situated at Belavadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, measuring 38 guntas out of 4 acres 20 guntas as lapsed. 2. The petitioner claims that 38 guntas in Sy.No.249/2 of Belavadi was owned and possessed by Sri.B.Ravi, he having derived it as his share in a partition deed dated 26.12.2023. The said Ravi sold the said property in favour of the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 20.03.2025. She claims that the respondent No.1 had issued a notification proposing under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, proposing to acquire 4 acres and 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.249, in terms of a notification dated 03.07.1999. She contends that even after 25 years the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 respondents did not issue any final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. She contends that the respondents have thus abandoned the acquisition. She contends that similarly placed land losers had approached this Court in various Writ Petitions and that this Court in W.P.Nos.29365/2024, 29385/2024 and 28886/2024 quashed the preliminary notification. The petitioner has therefore challenged the preliminary notification and has also sought for a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that after issuance of a preliminary notification, the respondent No.1 has not taken any steps to issue the final notification and therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept waiting endlessly. He therefore submits that the acquisition has lapsed and prays for a declaration to that effect. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the fact that after issuance of a preliminary notification no steps are taken to issue a final notification. They also do not dispute that similar questions of fact and law arose for consideration in W.P.Nos.29365/2024, 29385/2024 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 28886/2024 and that this Court had quashed the preliminary notification and allowed the land losers to utilize their land. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 on the other hand contended that the delay in issuing the final notification is only attributable to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore liberty be reserved to respondent No.4 to take necessary action against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 7. It is not in dispute that after a preliminary notification dated 03.07.1999 issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, no steps are taken to issue a final notification. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be kept waiting endlessly and she cannot be deprived of the use of her land for whatever purpose that she intends to. Therefore, the proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner has remained a proposal and the acquisition has not been concluded. Consequently, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 petitioner is entitled to utilize her land for whatever purpose that she desires. 8. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. The impugned preliminary notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:1998 dated 03.07.1999 issued by the respondent No.1, in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.249/2 (old Sy.No.249), measuring 38 guntas out of 4 acres 20 guntas, situated at Belavadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, is quashed; iii. It is also declared that the proposal to acquire the aforesaid land has lapsed. Consequently, any entry of the name of the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 in the revenue records of the aforesaid land shall stand deleted and the name of the petitioner shall stand restored forthwith; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27917 WP No. 36588 of 2025 iv. The respondent No.4 is at liberty to proceed against the respondent No.1 and 2 for not taking out necessary steps to conclude the acquisition. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22