IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 34237 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O S NARAYANAPPA R/AT KANNAMANGALA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

2. SRI MAHESH A AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O ANJANAPPA R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI ALURDUDDANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562131.

Digitally signed by …PETITIONERS MAHALAKSHMI B M (BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTI L. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR Location: HIGH SRI CHIRANJEEVI K.R., ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560001.

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE- 560001, REP. BY CEO AND EM.

4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE -560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO. CI 17 SPQ 2022 DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED BY R2 ATTACHED HEREWITH ANNX-K INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Harisha A.S., learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar is directed to accept notice for respondents No.2 and 3.

3. The petitioners claim to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, having acquired under registered sale deed dated 22.04.2024. Respondent No.1 issued preliminary notification dated 29.03.2025 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short “the KIAD Act”) vide Annexure-K for the benefit of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notification issued is in contravention of the Circular dated 03.03.2007, wherein it directs the KIADB to exclude the lands converted for non- agricultural purpose, horticultural lands, lands where double crops are grown and the lands with petrol bunks from acquisition. The petitioners’ land is converted from agriculture to non-agricultural use by the erstwhile owner by order dated 13.06.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and he has paid requisite conversion charges. It is further contended that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the preliminary notification, instead name of the erstwhile owner is shown, which has caused prejudice.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the writ petition is premature. It is submitted that only a preliminary notification has been issued and the petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing objections, if any, under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act.

5. This court has considered the submissions urged and perused the material on record.

6. Section 28(1) to (4) of the KIADB Act for the purpose of this petition reads thus:

“28.Acquisition of land: (1) If at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may by notification, given notice of its intention to acquire such land.

(2) On publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should not be acquired.

(3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an oppor