THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SRI B V RAMACHANDRA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 18382/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18382 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B V RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
@ ABBAIAH REDDY
R/AT NO.337,
4TH MAIN
18TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080
2. SMT. NAMITHA R REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O SRI B.V.RAMACHANDRA REDDY
W/O DR SAI MANOHAR
Digitally signed by
PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.337, 4TH MAIN
COURT OF
18TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 080
3. SMT. B.V. MEENAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA @
ABBAIAH REDDY
W/O SRI M RAMALINGAPPA
R/AT NO.267, BELLANDUR
BANGALORE - 560 103
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, ANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 007 REPT BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 007 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1;
SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.42/3 OF KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, HAS LAPSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of land bearing Survey No. 42/3 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas, Kariyammana Agarahara Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (schedule property) notified under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development, Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) vide preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and culminating in Section 28 (4) final notification dated 19.12.2005.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioners claim absolute ownership over the schedule property through a chain of partition and mutation entries. The land was originally held by Venkatappa alias Abbaiah Reddy, who died in 1991. The preliminary notification under Section 28(1) was issued on
09.02.2004 (Annexure-E) including the petitioners land, but showing the name of the deceased khatedar. Several adjoining lands in Kariyammana Agrahara notified in the same scheme were de-notified from time to time i.e. on 23.02.2004, 05.05.2004, 07.05.2004, 15.02.2011 and 12.12.2011 (Annexures- F, G, L, M, N). The petitioners filed their objections to the notification requesting dropping of acquisition which was not considered. No notice was ever served on the petitioners as Kathedars or Anubhavadars, and the possession was admittedly not taken at any point of time and that the petitioners continued to remain in lawful possession. During the pendency of the writ petition which was filed in 2017, the respondents passed an award on 15.02.2018 and the matter has been referred to the Civil Court as LAC No. 73 of 2018. The deposit of compensation is also stated to have been made only after the writ petition was filed. The petitioners also rely on the fact that even recently, certain lands in the very same industrial areas have been de-
notified, demonstrating that the scheme is no longer viable.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acquisition has lapsed for non-passing of an award within time. No award was passed for more than 12 years after the 2005 notification, thereby attracting lapse under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short) read with Section 30 of KIAD. Act. It is contended that the petitioners continue to be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.