##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54638

WP No. 24031 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO.24031 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI SAHADEVA @ SAHADEVAIAH

S/O. LATE KAMBAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 37,

VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI,

RAMANAGARA TALUK,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109.

2. SRI NAGARAJU .K

S/O. LATE KAMBAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 19,

CHALLEGHATTA VILLAGE,

KUMBALAGODU POST, KENGERI HOBLI,

BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 060.

3. SRI NAGARAJU

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O. KAKAPPA @ RAMAIAH,

Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

COURT OF RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.26/2,

KARNATAKA 17^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS,

SUBRAMANYA NAGARA,

BENGALURU-560021.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,

VIKASA SOUDHA,

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54638

WP No. 24031 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 001,

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,

RACE COURSE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001

REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001.

4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED

OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,

MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G. ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING DIRECTOR.

5. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED

AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE,

MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G. ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

(R-5 IS IMPLEADED VIDE COURT

ORDER DATED 29.10.2025)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVINDRA V. REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R-1;

SRI VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3;

SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO.CI 196 SPQ 98,

BENGALURU DATED 19.12.1998 & NO.CI 196 SPQ 98, BENGALURU

DATED 29.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURES-A & B AND FINAL

NOTIFICATIONS BEARING NO.VAAKAI 196 SPG 98 (P), BENGALURU,

DATED 08.06.2003 AND NO.VAAKAI 196 SPG 98 (P-II), BENGALURU,

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54638

WP No. 24031 of 2025

HC-KAR

DATED 05.07.2003 VIDE ANNEXURES-C & D RESPECTIVELY ISSUED

BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE

PROPERTY AS THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE

ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS WITHIN REASONABLE TIME

INCLUDING PASSING OF THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF THE

COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS 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 petitioners have called in question the

acquisition preliminary notifications dated 19.12.1998 and

29.01.2023 initiated under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for

short) and final notifications dated 08.05.2003 and

05.07.2003 initiated under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act

in respect of land, Sy.No.160 measuring 4 acres situated

at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk

and District (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule land’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by

the decision of this Court in Smt. Rathna S. Reddy Vs.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54638

WP No. 24031 of 2025

HC-KAR

State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.20824/2025 D.D 05.12.2025 (Rathna S. Reddy)

wherein on the ground that no further proceedings

pursuant to the final notifications have been proceeded by

the authority. This Court has quashed the preliminary

notification and the final notification in respect of the

petitioner's land therein and the petitioners being similarly

placed under the same acquisition, similar order needs to

be passed in this writ petition as well.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents would

submit that in Rathna S. Reddy’s case, the preliminary

notification and fin