NEELAMMA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021




ZIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 7312 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

NEELAMMA
W/O K. MAHALINGAPPA
AGED 68 YEARS
ST
R/O NO.2897, 21 MAIN ROAD
ND
2 STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA
MYSURU-570017
…PETITIONER






(BY SMT. ANANYA GUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

2.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU.

3.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NIMZ, MARUTHI TOWERS
ST
1 FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE
B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572103
…RESPONDENTS




Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B.PATIL,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION NO.CI 162 SPQ(E) 2019 DATED 08.01.2020 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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
certiorari to quash the notification bearing No.CI 162 SPQ(E)
2019 dated 08.01.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No.111 of Mudigerekaval village,
Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, measuring 6 acres
34 guntas. Petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the illegal change of pahani in respect of
Sy.No.111 by respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ
in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing
No.Vibhuswaa/KIADB/Tu/Comp No-2416/2019-20, dated
25.07.2019.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in
Sy.No.111 of Mudigerekaval village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk,
Tumakuru District and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The
aforesaid land was proposed to be acquired by the respondent
No.1 in terms of a preliminary notification dated 24.04.2010
issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'KIAD Act').
This was followed by a final notification dated 19.08.2010
published in the official gazette on 20.08.2010. The petitioner
along with others challenged the final notification before this
Court in W.P.Nos.15908-15914/2011 on the ground that they
were not given an opportunity to represent against the
acquisition. This Court in terms of an order dated 25.05.2012
quashed the final notification in respect of land of the
petitioners therein and directed the respondent No.3 to
reconsider the objections of the petitioners therein and pass
appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 held
proceedings and passed an order under Section 28(3) of the
KIAD Act on 01.03.2014 and rejected the objections filed by
the petitioner. Following this, the petitioner submitted multiple

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


letters to the respondent No.2 and the Additional Chief
Secretary to the State Government seeking exclusion of her
land. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 held further proceedings
and considered the representations of the petitioner and passed
an order again under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act on
25.07.2019. Following this, the respondent No.1 issued a final
notification on 08.01.2020 and a notice under Section 28(6) of
the KIAD Act was served on the petitioner on 29.01.2020. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the same, is before this Court.

3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and
the Additional Chief Secretary to the State Government had
written to the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) stating that the
KIADB should ensure that no land belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes be notified and if the said
direction is violated, the Special Deputy Commissioner and the
Special Land Acquisition Officer would be personally held
responsible for it. She contends that this has been the
consistent stand of the State Government and as the petitioner

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


belongs to Scheduled Caste, the land belonging to her could not
have been acquired. She contends that the only reason for not
granting this benefit recognized by the State Government was
that it affected the contiguity of the industrial layout. She
contends that the contiguity is not affected by excluding the
land belonging to the petitioner. She also contends that after
the respondent No.3 rejected the objections filed by the
petitioner, the petitioner had filed representations 07.02.2014
and 14.02.2014, following which, the Chief Executive Officer of
KIADB had addressed a letter dated 11.05.2016 to respondent
No.3 directing that henceforth the land belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes should not be proposed for
acquisition. She therefore contends that the impugned
notification is liable to be quashed on this short ground alone.

(ii) Besides this, she contends that the petitioner is an
agriculturist and has a large family to support who are entirely
dependent on agriculture and therefore, the impugned
notification may be quashed. She also contends that the
respondent No.3 having once passed an order under Section
28(3) of the KIAD Act could not have passed a second order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act on 25.07.2019. She
contends that this is only to overcome the delay in publishing
the final notification. She contends that since the respondents
have not taken steps to conclude the acquisition within a
reasonable time, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. In
support of this contention, she relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer and others vs. K.B. Lingaraju and others [Special
Leave Petition (Civil) (Diary) Nos.38087/2023 and
contended that any delay in concluding the acquisition
proceedings should result in declaring the acquisition as lapsed.
She therefore prays that the impugned acquisition be declared
as having been abandoned by the respondents.

4. (i) A statement of objections is filed by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is contended that after the
order dated 25.05.2012 was passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.15908-15914/2011, opportunity was granted to the
petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 and participate
in an enquiry under Section 28(3) of the KIAD Act. After
considering the contentions of the petitioner, the respondent

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


No.3 passed an order on 01.03.2014 rejecting the objections
raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government
being satisfied with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer
and the need of the land for the purposes of the industrial area
issued a final notification dated 08.01.2020, which was
accordingly published. Thereafter, the land stood vested in the
State Government free from all encumbrances under Section
28(5) of the KIAD Act. It is further contended that a notice
under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act was issued to the
petitioner on 29.01.2020 to surrender possession of the
property. However, the petitioner failed to surrender possession
and hence the possession was taken on 24.07.2020 under
Section 28(7) of the KIAD Act. Further, it is claimed that the
Price Advisory Committee constituted under the chairmanship
of the Deputy Commissioner had determined the compensation
payable at a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- per acre under Section
29(2) of the KIAD Act. Accordingly, a notice under Section
29(2) of the KIAD Act was issued to the petitioner on
17.10.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed the present

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


writ petition challenging the validity of the final notification
dated 08.01.2020.

(ii) It is contended that the only objection raised by the
petitioner in the objections filed before the respondent No.3
was that she belonged to Scheduled Caste and it was the policy
of the State Government not to acquire lands belonging to the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is claimed that there
is no impediment in law to acquire the lands belonging to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The communication
dated 04.05.2016 is subsequent to the issuance of the
preliminary notification of the land in question and has no
statutory force in the eyes of law and hence, it would not help
the petitioner in any manner to save the land from acquisition.
It is further contended that after the order passed under
Section 28(3) of KIAD Act, the petitioner made multiple
requests to the KIADB for change of the revenue entries, which
was on the basis of the earlier final notification dated
19.08.2010 published in the official gazette on 20.08.2010. It is
claimed that the impugned notification is valid and proper and
all opportunities were granted to the petitioner and since the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


land belonging to the petitioner is required for the compactness
of the industrial area, the impugned notification cannot be
disturbed.

(iii) As regards the delay in publishing the final
notification, it is contended that after an order under Section
28(3) of the KIAD Act was passed on 01.03.2014, the
petitioner filed representations to the Chief Executive Officer of
KIADB, the Chief Secretary, by referring to the letter dated
04.05.2016 addressed by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Industries and Commerce which was in
connection with the acquisition of land in Polanahalli Village,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is claimed that
the petitioner was making continuous representations opposing
the acquisition of her land on the ground that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the final notification could not be
issued within a reasonable time. It is contended that the
petitioner also submitted a representation to the respondent
No.2 on 18.05.2019 seeking for exclusion of the land on the
very same ground. Therefore, in order to examine the matter in
further detail, the respondent No.3 felt it appropriate to issue

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


notice and hear the petitioner as well as the Engineers of the
KIADB attached to the project. Accordingly, a notice was issued
to the petitioner on 18.04.2017 to appear for an enquiry along
with necessary documents on 03.05.2017. The petitioner
participated in the enquiry and after providing an opportunity of
being heard, the respondent No.3 passed an order under
Section 28(3) of the Act on 27.05.2019 rejecting the
petitioner's request for exclusion of her land as it affected the
contiguity and compactness of the industrial area.
Thereafter, a final notification was issued on 08.01.2020 which
was published in the official gazette on 09.01.2020.

5. The learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3 reiterated the above submissions and contended that the
acquisition is concluded in all respects and possession of the
property is already taken over. He contends that if the
petitioner is desirous of claiming compensation, she may do so
in accordance with law and respondent Nos.2 and 3 will take
necessary steps either to award compensation or give away
developed land as per the policy of the State Government.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for
the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. The land in question is acquired for the purposes of
an industrial area. The land belonging to the petitioner
measures 6 acres 34 guntas. The only contention that the
petitioner urged for excluding her land from acquisition in the
objections filed to the preliminary notification was that she
belonged to Scheduled Caste and that the Additional Chief
Secretary had in a communication indicated that land belonging
to the Scheduled Caste should not be proposed for acquisition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to establish
whether such an order stemmed from any statutory power of
the Additional Chief Secretary. Furthermore, she was not able
to point out from the provisions contained either in the KIAD
Act or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, which gave power to the State
Government to exclude lands belonging to persons belonging to
Schedule Caste.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel
for respondent Nos.2 and 3 the property of the petitioner is 6
acres 34 guntas and hence, excluding such a huge chunk of
property would affect the compactness and contiguity of an
industrial area. Therefore, the only ground that the petitioner
raised against acquiring her property was considered by the
respondent No.3 and it was held that the petitioner is entitled
to claim compensation for the land acquired. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot assail the acquisition on the sole ground that
she belongs to Scheduled Caste and that her land cannot be
acquired. In addition, the State Government has placed on
record a letter dated 22.05.2026 stating that the direction of
the Additional Chief Secretary has no statutory basis and this
cannot in any way come in the way of the acquisition of the
land, if it results in affecting the compactness or contiguity of
the industrial area.

9. However, the acquisition which commenced in the
year 2010, ought to have been concluded within a reasonable
time. The final notification issued on 19.08.2010 was quashed
by this Court in W.P.Nos.15908-15914/2011 vide an order

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


dated 25.05.2012 and the respondent No.3 was directed to
reconsider the objections filed by the petitioner. The
respondent No.3 after hearing the petitioner passed an order
under Section 28(3) on 01.03.2014. However, no steps were
thereafter taken to issue a final notification. The respondent
No.2 then entertained certain representations filed by the
petitioner seeking exclusion of her land on the very same
ground that she belonged to Schedule Caste and the
respondent No.3 again passed another order under Section
28(3) on 25.07.2019 though unnecessary. Thereafter, the
impugned final notification was issued on 08.01.2020. Thus, it
is evident that from the year 2010 till the year 2020, the
petitioner was deprived of the use of the land in question more
particularly as the name of the respondent No.2 was entered in
the revenue records of the land in question based on the final
notification dated 19.08.2010 and the respondent No.2 did
nothing to reverse the entries pursuant to the order passed by
this Court in W.P.Nos.15908-15914/2011. Hence, it can safely
be held that from the year 2010 till the year 2020, the
petitioner was deprived of the benefit of the use of her land. It

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


is also stated at the bar that till date, the award is not passed
in view of an order of status quo granted by this Court in this
writ petition. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that this is a fit case where this Court will have to
exercise power to move the date of the preliminary notification
for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to
the petitioner as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Franciscan Service Society of Bangalore vs Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board and others [SLP
(Civil) No.20347/2022] as well as the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph
Vaz and others vs. Government of Karnataka and others
[(2025) 7 SCC 580].

10. Hence, the petition is disposed off on the following
terms:-
ORDER
(i) The impugned final notification bearing No.CI 162
SPQ(E) 2019 dated 08.01.2020 issued by the
respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.111 of Mudigerekaval village, Kasaba Hobli,

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, measuring 6 acres 34
guntas is upheld.
(ii) However, for the purpose of determining the
compensation, the date of preliminary notification
shall be construed as 08.01.2020 when the
respondent No.1 issued a final notification under
Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act.
(iii) It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall be
entitled for quantification of compensation as
provided under the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 along with all benefits.
(iv) The compensation shall be determined and paid to
the petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) If the petitioner desires that she be allotted
developed land instead of monetary compensation,
in view of the policy of the State Government vide a
Government Order dated 23.02.2021, the

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54599
WP No. 7312 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010133832021


respondent No.2 shall also pass appropriate orders
in this regard after obtaining the consent of the
petitioner.




Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE



PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23