- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20005 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: S.N. RAMASWAMY ADIGA S/O LATE NARAYANA ADIGA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS R/AT SAALAGADI VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SAGAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER SRI. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SRI. MANMALJI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 11, 1ST FLOOR, KALPATHARU APARTMENTS, RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 BENGALURU- 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- 2 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARISH ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/6/2026, MADE BY THE PETITIONER, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE BY SETTING A TIME FRAME TO TRY AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 17.06.2026 and to pay compensation in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 respect of the property bearing Sy.No.18/p-16, renumbered as Sy.No.191 situate at Bikanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli-3, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, measuring 01 acre. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid property, having acquired it in terms of the sale deed dated 12.10.2018 executed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in execution of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.429/2007. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid property was originally granted in favour of Sri.B.K.Sreedhar Murthy in proceedings bearing No.LND/SR/54/78079 dated 21.11.1979 and that a grant certificate was issued in his favour. Thereafter, Sri. B.K.Sreedhar Murthy sold the aforesaid property in favour of Sri. T.P.Venkatachenna Reddy in terms of a sale deed dated 28.06.1995. The said Sri. T.P. Venkatachenna Reddy executed a general power of attorney in favour of Sri. S.David authorizing him to sell the aforesaid property. Thereafter, the general power of attorney holder of Sri. T.P.Venkatachenna Reddy executed an agreement of sale dated 30.08.2005 in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that the sale agreement - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 was not concluded and therefore, the petitioner was forced to file O.S.No.429/2007 for specific performance. The suit was decreed in part by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014 directing refund of the sale consideration to the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred R.A.No.5033/2014 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 23.06.2017 directing the defendants in the suit to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner contends that the general power of attorney holder of his vendor had entered into sale transactions in favour of third parties and executed a sale deed dated 11.08.2014 in favour one Sri. H.Y.Ramesh Reddy, who, in turn, sold the schedule property to Sri. Kumar Gaurav and Sri. Eshwar Rao R, in terms of the sale deed dated 15.04.2015 and that the said Sri. Kumar Gaurav and Sri. Eshwar Rao R sold the schedule property in favour of M/s. Vivansaa Blossoms in terms of the sale deed dated 19.08.2015. (iii) The petitioner contends that when things stood thus, the aforesaid property was notified for acquisition by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 respondent No.1 for the purposes of respondent No.2 in terms of a final notification bearing No.CI 52 SPQ 2024 dated 03.10.2024. The petitioner being the person entitled to claim compensation, filed representations dated 30.08.2024 and 13.12.2024 in that regard. The respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 02.06.2025 which was served not only on the petitioner but also on Sri. Eshwar Rao R and Smt. Anitha Kumari. After hearing the parties, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 25.06.2025 awarding compensation in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the said acquisition was challenged by Sri. Eashwar Rao R and the wife of Sri. Kumar Gaurav in W.P.Nos.22477/2025 c/w 27590/2025 and other connected petitions contending that their objections to the preliminary notification was not considered and requested the Court to quash the acquisition and direct the authorities to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner contends that pursuant to the order dated 25.06.2205, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 20.05.2026 notifying the compensation payable towards the acquisition of the subject land. The petitioner claims that he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 submitted a representation dated 17.06.2026 stating that he has no objection to the acquisition of the aforesaid land and requested the authorities to issue the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, in his name and pass an award. The petitioner claims that the said representation is not considered and therefore, he is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the petitioner, being the owner of the acquired land, is entitled to claim compensation. He therefore, prays that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to proceed with the acquisition, pass an award and pay compensation by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.06.2026. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and, if the petitioner is entitled to, appropriate proceedings would be initiated to issue the final notification and grant compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33296 WP No. 20005 of 2026 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and issue necessary final notification and pass appropriate award in accordance with law. 6. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22