Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, T.M. Nadav, JJ
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4501 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4504 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4509 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4544 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4548 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4554 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4557 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4856 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4857 OF 2013 (LA)|WRIT APPEAL NO. 4858 OF 2013 (LA)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Sri. Maina Varma, Advocate (for WA 4647/2013); Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Advocate for H.N. Suhas, Advocate (for WA 4501/2013); Sri. Swaroop Anand.R, Advocate (for WA 4504/2013); Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.N.Suhas, Advocate (for WA 4509/2013); Sri. Aditya Narayan, Advocate (for WA 4544, 4548, 4554, 4557/2013); Sri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate (for WA 4855, 4856, 4857, 4858/2013)
For the Respondents:Sri. M.N.Sudev Hegde, AGA for R1 and R2 (in all appeals); Sri. Basavaraj.V.Sabarad, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R3 to R5 (in various appeals); Sri. Aditya Narayan, Advocate for R6 (in various appeals); Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.N. Suhas, Advocate for R6-R9 (in WA 4544, 4856, 4857/2013); Sri. Swaroop Anand R., for R6 to R11 (in WA 4548/2013); Sri. H.N.Shashidhara, Senior Advocate for Sri. H.S. Suhas, Advocate for R6, R7, R8(a) (in WA 4554/2013); Smt. Mainaverma and K.L.Gangadhar, Advocate for R6 (in WA 4557/2013); Sri. M.N. Sudev Hegde. AGA fpr R1 and R2 (in WA 4855/2013); Sri. Aditya Narayan, Advocate for R6 (in WA 4857/2013)

Land acquisition for a private entity under the KIAD Act is invalid as a fraud on statute and Constitution; 14-year delay in passing award vitiates proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - Sections 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 28(4), 28(5), 28(6), 28(7), 28(8), 29, 13 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 26(b), 30(1-A), 300A - Industrial development - Land acquisition for private entity - Public purpose - Compensation - Vesting of land - Time limit for passing award - Deprivation of property by authority of law - Colourable exercise of power - Fraud on statute.

(B) Constitutional law - Right to property - Article 300A - The right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Deprivation of property must take place for public purpose or public interest. Any law which deprives a person of his private property for private interest will be unlawful, unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review. (Paras 23, 26)

(C) Interpretation of statutes - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - The object of the Act is to acquire land for setting up industrial areas, not for an individual entity. Acquiring land for a profit-making entity for its expansion is a fraud committed on statute. (Paras 15-17)

Facts of the case:
The appellant M/s Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Association (IMTMA), a charitable company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, established the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) on land transferred by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE). IMTMA sought further acquisition of 23 acres 38 guntas of land in villages for construction of a multi-level car parking facility. The State Government issued notifications under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. After hearing objections, a final notification under Section 28(4) was issued for 17.38 acres. The landowners challenged the acquisition. The learned Single Judge upheld acquisition for only 7 acres and quashed the rest. Appeals were filed by the KIADB, IMTMA, and the landowners. No award was passed and no compensation paid even after 14 years from the final notification.

Findings of Court:
The entire exercise of acquiring the land for IMTMA was vitiated under the constitutional scheme. As no award was made for 14 years, the land acquisition proceedings lapsed. The State could not have acquired the land for a profitable private entity. The appeals filed by the landowners were allowed, and those filed by the KIADB and IMTMA were dismissed. The writ petitions of the landowners were allowed, quashing the acquisition notification. (Paras 36-38)

Issues: The main issues were: (1) Whether the land acquisition proceedings became bad as no award was passed or compensation paid for 14 years after the final notification; and (2) Whether the land acquisition proceedings could be undertaken on behalf of a private entity capable of purchasing land through private negotiations. (Para 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that land acquisition under the KIAD Act must be for public purpose, being the development of industrial areas, and not for a private entity. The failure to pass an award and pay compensation for 14 years rendered the acquisition lapsed. The acquisition for a private profit-making entity was a colourable exercise of power and fraud on the statute and Constitution, violating Articles 14, 21, and 300A. (Paras 17, 22, 27, 30, 36)

Result: The writ appeals filed by the landowners are allowed. The writ appeals filed by the KIADB and IMTMA are dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the landowners are allowed, quashing the acquisition notification. No order as to costs. Pending IAs disposed of. (Paras 38, 39)

Table of Content
1. what is the factual background of the acquisition of land for imtma? (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. land acquisition for private entity requires public purpose and is subject to constitutional safeguards. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
3. acquisition lapses due to delay; landowners' appeals allowed. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present batch of twelve (12) intra Court appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P.Nos.18562-567/2012 connected with W.P.Nos.18558-561/2012, W.P.No.19405-407/2012 and W.P.No.24536/2012. The details of the twelve writ appeals are given under:

i. Appeals with respect to the order passed in W.P.Nos.18562-67/2012 (T Krishnappa & Ors-Sy.Nos.68, 69).

Sl.No.	Writ Appeal Number	Filed by (Appellants)
1.	4505/2013	T Krishnappa & Ors
2.	4855/2013	KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3.	4548/2013	Indian Machine Tools

ii. Appeals with respect to the order passed in W.P.No.24536/2012 (Mukesh Kumar-Sy.No.72).

Sl.No.	Writ Appeal Number	Filed by (Appellants)
1.	4657/2013	Mukesh Kumar
2.	4858/2013	KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3.	4557/2013	Indian Machine Tools

iii. Appeals with respect to the order passed in W.P.Nos.19405-407/2012 (Shanthappa & Ors - Sy.Nos.18/316, 18/317).

Sl.No.	Writ Appeal Number	Filed by (Appellants)
1.	4501/2013	Shanthappa & Ors
2.	4857/2013	KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3.	4554/2013	Indian Machine Tools

iv. Appeals with respect to the order passed in W.P.Nos.18558-561/2012 (Suresh Chandra Guptha & Ors Sy.No.72).

Sl.No.	Writ Appeal Number	Filed by (Appellants)
1.	4657/2013	Suresh Chadra Guptha & Ors
2.	4856/2013	KIADB - aggrieved by quashing of acquisition of 11 acres 1 gunta
3.	4557/2013 REPEATED-4544	Indian Machine Tools

2. The appellant-M/s. Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Association (IMTMA) in W.A.Nos.4548/2013, 4554/2013, 4544/2013 and 4557/2013 has been established as a charitable company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013). The Board of Directors of IMTMA comprises of several big/prominent industrialists, as of today. The company is managed by one Director General and CEO alongwith 24 Directors, details of which are available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Further, The IMTMA has established the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) which was approved by the State Government vide Government Order dated 18.09.2003. Vide the said Government order, the State Government had directed the land required for the Centre (38 acres) to be transferred by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE) out of the land acquired for Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).

3. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the NICE transferred a total extent of 34 acres 11 guntas of land (i.e.,30 acres in 2003 and 4 acres and 11 guntas in 2006). Originally the BIEC project was established over 34 acres 11 guntas of land. In September 2013, IMTMA, being in need of an adequate access road for movement to and from the facility, acquired an extent of 6 acres 10 guntas more land from NICE. According to the IMTMA, the approach road has been developed by using the said land. Because of the exponential growth in the scale of its activities and since the the four exhibition halls put up on the said land originally made available was not sufficient, IMTMA sought and obtained approval for expansion of BIEC by construction of two additional halls. The land to the extent of 22 acres and 38 guntas was identified for this purpose and the Government order dated 25.11.2014 approved establishment of the project on the said land to be acquired after seeking permission under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4. Pursuant to the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26614

Land acquisition for a private entity under the KIAD Act is invalid as a fraud on statute and Constitution; 14-year delay in passing award vitiates proceedings.

Cases Referred (5)