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) 439967

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SHRI ABHISHEK GOWDA B M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 35677/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 35677 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SHRI ABHISHEK GOWDA B M

S/O B R MUNEGOWDA, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS,

R/A BANDIKODIGEHALLI JALA HOBLI,

BENGALURU 562 149.

REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER NANJEGOWDA S

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V..,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,

VIKASA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU 560 001.

REP BY ITS SECRETARY

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN,

Location: HIGH RACE COURSE ROAD,

COURT OF

BENGALURU 560 001.

KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

3. THE SPECIAL LAND AXQUISITION OFFICER 2,

KARNATAKA INDUSRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA,

BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING,

4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,

BENALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA FOR R1;

SRI. B B PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DECLARING THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/422/SPQ/2005, BANGALORE, DATED 03.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007, BANGALORE, DATED 07.05.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.40/P16 MEASURING 04 ACRES SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (YELAHANKA) AS ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NON-EST AND ETC.

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

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order declaring that the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.40/P16 measuring 04 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as abandoned, lapsed and non-est;

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.40/P16 measuring 04 acres situated Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as the First and Second Respondents have not completed the acquisition proceedings within reasonable time;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.

(d) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Preliminary Notification was issued on 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) notifying the schedule property along with other properties for formation of an industrial area and Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B), the respondents have not taken any steps to pass the award or to take possession of the schedule properties even after a lapse of nearly eighteen years. It is contended that the proceedings have remained at the stage of mere notification and have not been followed by any substantive steps for acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

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