Sri B R Ravichandiran v. State of Karnataka

ORDER

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification dated 29.01.2003, issued by the KIADB under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act is hereby quashed insofar as the property of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.101 (Old No.85, Block 4), measuring 1 acre, situated at Totadaguddadahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, is concerned.

iii) The jurisdictional Tahsildar is directed to take necessary steps to restore the revenue records into the name of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings against the respondents for the alleged loss caused to the petitioner on account of the respondents not continuing the acquisition proceedings even after issuance of preliminary notification from 2003 onwards, till today."

¶6Taking note of the fact that after the preliminary notification was passed on 29.01.2003, no steps have been taken to complete and effectuate the

acquisition proceedings, it could be declared that the proceedings have been abandoned and accordingly lapsed.

¶7Taking note of the observations made in W.P.No.6761/2021 and noticing that the petitioner is identically situated on parity as well, the petition requires to be allowed. Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act and so far as petitioner's land in Survey No. 106 of Thotadaguddahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore-North Taluk is set aside.

¶8Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9582 WP(No.(3338(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(16 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3338(OF(2026((LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:( 1. SRI,B,R,RAVICHANDIRAN, S/O.,LATE,M.,RAJAMANIKYAM,,AGED,ABOUT,66, YEARS,,R/O.NO.22/1,,1ST,MAIN,ROAD,, VENKATESHWARA,NILAYA,,BELMAR,LAYOUT,,R.K., NAGARA,,NAGASANDRA,POST,,BENGALURU,560073., (PETITIONER,IS,NOT,CLAIMING,THE,BENEFIT,OF, SENIOR,CITIZENSHIP) …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAMESH,K,R.,ADVOCATE), AND: 1. STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, Digitallytisigned by DEPARTMENT,OF,INDUSTRIES,AND,COMMERCE,, SHARADAVANI B REPTD.,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,VIDHANA, Location:0High SOUDHA,,BENGALURU-560,001., Courttiof Karnataka 2. THE,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,DEVELOPMENT, BOARD,,NO.,49,,5TH,FLOOR,,KHANIJA,BHAVAN,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,,, BANGALORE-,560001., 3. THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER,, KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,DEVELOPMENT, BOARD,,NO.,14/3,,1ST,FLOOR,,, MAHARSHI,ARAVINDA,BHAVAN,,, NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,, BANGALORE- 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R1, SRI ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3.) THIS WP UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 29/01/2003 BEARING NO. CI/196/SPQ/98 ISSUED BY R1 U/S 28(1) OF KIADB AT ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the preliminary notification dated 29.01.2003 issued by the first respondent at Annexure-H. 2. It is submitted that, though the respondent Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) has notified the land belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.106 of Thotadaguddahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, by way of preliminary notification on 29.01.2003, till date, no action has been taken by the respondent to complete the acquisition process. 3. It is submitted that with respect to the same notification of 29.01.2003, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6761/2021, in the case of Bylanjanappa -Vs- State of Karnataka and others, has set aside the preliminary notification. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted that, in the present petition as well, in light of the inaction of the respondent- KIADB as well as the State, to complete the process of acquisition, the Court may on parity set aside the preliminary notification insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. 5. Observations made in W.P.No.6761/2021 reads as follows: "3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that subsequent to issuance of the preliminary notification dated 29.01.2003, issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short "the KIAD Act"), respondent No.3 has not issued the final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act so far and as such, the entire acquisition has lapsed. It is therefore submitted that the impugned preliminary notification deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel invites my attention to the following decisions of this Court:- i. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and other vs. Smt. Anitha Purnesh in W.A. No.2402/2014 dated 12.04.2016. ii. Sri Munivenkatappa and others vs. The state of Karnataka in W.P Nos.58842-58344/2016 dated 19.07.2018 iii. Smt Indramma and others vs. State of Karnataka in W.P Nos.10667-70/2018 dated 05.07.2019 iv. Sri.K.Gangadhar and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P Nos. 112501-112506/2014 dated 18.02.2016 v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & Others - W.P.No.6354-6356/2011 dated 01.12.2011. vi. Smt. N. Rekha vs. State