IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.22054 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. SURESH KUMAR ARYA S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR ARYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.3, 4^TH FLOOR, NARANG CHAMBERS, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. 2. PRAKASH LOBO S/O SRI. ALICE D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.176, 4^TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR Ind TOWN, BENGALURU-560044.

…PETITIONERS Digitally signed by (BY SRI. ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE, 1^st FLOOR, MAHARSHI AVIRANDA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1;

SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT PUBLISHED ON 16.09.1999 (ANNEXURE-A) (CI.66.NPQ.96 BHAGHA) IN SO FAR AS LAND BEARING SY. NO.30/1 MEASURING 2 ACRES SITUATED AT BILLAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notifications issued under Sections 28 (4) and 28 (5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘the KIAD Act’ for short) in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.30/1 (New No.30/1C)

measuring 2 acres situated at Billakempanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District. 3. The land was notified for acquisition for the benefit of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (‘KPCL’) by final notification dated 16.09.1999 and amended notification dated 31.01.2003.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed owing to non- possession and non-payment of compensation even after a lapse of 20 years. Drawing the attention of this Court to Annexures-C to G, it is submitted that the land was never required for the project and that KPCL itself, by its letter dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-C), admitted that the land was insufficient and remained unutilized. It is urged that continued retention of the petitioners’ land without either payment or utilization is arbitrary, violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ representations dated 28.07.2016 and

23.08.2016 seeking de-notification or for an alternate allotment have not been considered by the authorities.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-KIADB submits that upon publication of final notification under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act, the land vests automatically in the State by operation of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act and therefore, the question of lapse does not arise. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and others (M. Nagabhushana) and M/s. Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 3 SCC 1 (Girnar Traders) to contend that once the land vests in the State, it cannot be divested merely on account of delay or non-payment of compensation. The acquisition was for a valid public purpose, and the delay does not nullify the proceedings.

1 (2011) 3 SCC 408

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the material on record.

7. The notifications under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act we