SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
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. 5504 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR
S/O C.RAMU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.416,
RD
C R RESIDENCY, 3 CROSS
TH
9 MAIN, IDEAL HOMES TOWN SHIP
NEAR SUBHASH BHAVAN PARK
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
2. SRI. R. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O C. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.416,
RD
C R RESIDENCY, 3 CROSS
TH
9 MAIN, IDEAL HOMES TOWN SHIP
NEAR SUBHASH BHAVAN PARK
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
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-5690 001
4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED
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
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA V. REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3;
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. S.B.MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 19.12.1998 BEARING NO.CI-
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
196-SPQ 98 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
NOTIFYING THE PETITIONERS' LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 36
GUNTAS IN SY. NO.54/2 (OLD SY.NO.54) OF THALAGUPPE VILLAGE,
BIDADI-2 HOBLI, RAMANAGARA-BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AS THE
ACQUISITION 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 petitioners have called in question the preliminary
notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 19.12.1998
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.No.54/2 (Old Sy.No.54) measuring 1 acre 36
guntas, situate at Thalaguppe village, Bidadi-2 Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District (land in question)
have lapsed.
2. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute
owners and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
land in question, having inherited the same after the death of
their father. They claim that the respondent No.1 had issued a
notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act on 19.12.1998,
proposing to acquire several lands including the land in
question. The petitioners contends that even after 27 years, the
respondents did not issue any final notification under Section
28(4) of the KIAD Act. They contend that the respondents have
thus abandoned the acquisition. They contend that similarly
placed landlosers had approached this Court in various Writ
Petitions and that this Court in W.P.Nos.15416/2023,
12078/2025 and 8400/2021 quashed the preliminary
notification. They therefore challenged the preliminary
notification and sought for a declaration that the acquisition has
lapsed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the
aforesaid contentions and submitted that after issuance of a
preliminary notification, the respondent No.1 has not taken any
steps to issue a final notification and therefore, the petitioners
cannot be kept waiting endlessly. He therefore submits that the
acquisition has lapsed and prays for a declaration to that effect.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
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 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.15416/2023, 12078/2025 and
8400/2021 and that this Court had quashed the preliminary
notification and allowed the landlosers to utilize their land.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the
learned counsel for respondent No.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 petitioners as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3
and learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as the learned
counsel for respondent No.5.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
7. It is not in dispute that after a preliminary
notification dated 19.12.1998 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 petitioners, the petitioners cannot be kept
waiting endlessly and they cannot be deprived of the use of
their land for whatever purpose that they intend to. Therefore,
the proposal to acquire the land of the petitioners has remained
a proposal and the acquisition has not been concluded.
Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to utilize their land
for whatever purpose that they desire.
8. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
ORDER
allowed
i. The petition is ;
ii. The impugned preliminary notification bearing
No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 19.12.1998 issued by
the respondent No.1, in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.54/2 (Old Sy.No.54) measuring 1
acre 36 guntas, situate at Thalaguppe village,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60305
WP No. 5504 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010122492026
Bidadi-2 Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural 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 names
of the petitioners 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.: 85