SMT VIDYANAGENDRA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 27311 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIDYANAGENDRA
W/O LATE H.P.NAGENDRA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1161
ST
1 CROSS ROAD,
ASHOKANAGARA,
MANDYA-571 401
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ND
NO.14/3, 2 FLOOR
ARAVIND BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED
PRIVATE COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT
OFFICE AT NO.1,
MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
5. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED
PRIVATE COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. T. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3;
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 02.06.1999 BEARING NO.CI
196 SPQ 98 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE PRELIMINARY
NOTIFICATION DATED 30.03.2004 BEARING NO.CI 196 SPQ 98
(PART-III) VIDE ANNEXURE-B, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
NOTIFYING THE PETITIONER'S LANDS MEASURING 25 GUNTAS IN
SY. NO.23/2 AND 35 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.23/3 TOTALLY 1 ACRE 20
GUNTAS SITUATED AT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI
HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AS THE ACQUISITION
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NULL AND
VOID AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the preliminary
notifications bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 02.06.1999 and
bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 30.03.2004 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 that the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the land
bearing Sy.Nos.23/2, measuring 25 guntas and Sy.No.23/3
measuring 35 guntas, totally measuring 1 acre 20 guntas,
situate at Mallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk (land in question) have lapsed.
2. The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner
and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in
question, having inherited the same after the death of her
husband, who purchased it in terms of a registered sale deed
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
dated 22.11.2004 from Sri. R. Mayanna and his family
members. She claims that the respondent No.1 had issued
notifications under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act on
02.06.1999 and 30.03.2004, proposing to acquire several lands
including the land in question. The petitioner contends that
even after 27 years, the 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 landlosers had approached this
Court in various Writ Petitions and that this Court in
W.P.Nos.30353/2015 and 17023/2025 quashed the preliminary
notification. She therefore challenged the preliminary
notifications and sought for a declaration that the acquisition
has lapsed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
aforesaid contentions and submitted that after issuance of
preliminary notifications, the respondent No.1 has not taken
any steps to issue a final notification and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be kept waiting endlessly. He therefore
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
submits that the acquisition has lapsed and prays for a
declaration to that effect.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and
the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not dispute
the fact that after issuance of preliminary notifications 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.30353/2015 and 17023/2025 and that this Court had
quashed the preliminary notification and allowed the landlosers
to utilize their land.
5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 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 Nos.4 and 5 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 No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3
and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
7. It is not in dispute that after preliminary
notifications dated 02.06.1999 and 30.03.2004 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 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
allowed
i. The petition is ;
ii. The impugned preliminary notifications bearing
No. CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 02.06.1999 and bearing
No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 30.03.2004 issued by
the respondent No.1, in respect of the land
bearing Sy.Nos.23/2, measuring 25 guntas and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60306
WP No. 27311 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010599902026
Sy.No.23/3 measuring 35 guntas, totally
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, situate at
Mallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, are 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;
iv. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 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
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88