SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 437985

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY C – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 27601/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.27601 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY .C

S/O N.V. CHANNARAYAPPA,

AGED 57 YEARS,

R/AT NO.813/697 (OLD NO.38)

2ND CROSS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,

SUGAPPA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,

BENGALURU-560064.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI P.M. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA,

Digitally signed by DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

MAHALAKSHMI B M BENGALURU-560001 Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS

COURT OF

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

KARNATAKA

2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &

EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 (BMICP)

ZONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

1ST FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVAN,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, “PARISARA BHAVANA”, 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHURCH STREET , BANGALORE-560001.

5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-5;

SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

SRI ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING NOTIFICATION NO.CI 17 SPQ (E) 2022 DATED 07.02.2022 (PUBLISHED ON 10.02.2022) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 1(3), 3(1) AND 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER’S GARDEN LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.87/2 AND LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.87/3 OF NAGADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the impugned endorsement issued by respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land bearing Sy.No.87/2, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and Sy.No.87/3, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, situated at Nagadenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, acquired under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD, Act’ for short).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the objections filed by him seeking exemption of his fully developed garden lands have not been considered in the manner mandated under law and contrary to the binding of Government circular dated 18.03.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that land in Sy.Nos.87/2 and 87/3 constitute a fully developed garden with several hundred grown trees of environmental and economic significance, and that the Government's circular dated 18.03.2013, specifically directs exclusion of the developed garden lands at the stage of preliminary notification. It is further urged that the SLAO has mechanically issued the impugned endorsement declining to consider the request for de-notification solely on the ground that the final notification has been issued, without applying mind to the circular and without holding a meaningful enquiry under Section 28(3) of the KIAD, Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the acquisition is part of a large integrated industrial layout and the circular is only a guideline, which cannot be applied where exclusion affects compactness of industrial blocks. It is further contended that the petitioner had at a later stage sought developed land instead of compensation and therefore cannot now challenge acquisition. It is also urged that, the SLAO has already considered all relevant aspects and issued the endorsement in accordance with law.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top