Disposed¶43

Sri Prakashchand Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WA/599/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman & Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.), W.A. No.599/2023 (LA-KIADB), decided 09.10.2025 — KIADB/BMRCL Metro land acquisition; mandamus to acquire land cannot be issued; access to left over property in Sy.No.18/2 of Hebbagodi; right to approach BMRCL per statement of objections para 7 (public road from National Highway) left open; writ appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ appeal disposed of with the appellants' right to approach respondent No.4 - BMRCL regarding lack of access to the remaining property in Sy.No.18/2 of Hebbagodi and to seek the remedies stated in the statement of objections left open. ¶43

Sri Prakashchand Jain Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39866-DB W.A. No.599/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.599/2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶11

SRI. PRAKASHCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE JETHMAL JAIN R/AT NO.26, SHANTHI OPAL FLAT NO.101 AND 102, 7TH B MAIN, JAYANAGARA 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

¶12

SRI. B.S. SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI. B.G. SRINIVASA MURTHY NO.5, IST FLOOR, BALAJI NILAYA DATTATREYA TEMPLE ROAD GANDHI BAZAAR, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADV., FOR SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39866-DB W.A. No.599/2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.I.A.D.B. (METRO) BENGALURU.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVANA IST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

BANGALORE METRO CORPORATION LTD (A JOINT VENTURE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) B M T C COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. MANJUNATH N.D. ADV., FOR R3 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R4 R2 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P. No. 14982/2022, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 AND PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS, ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT APPEAL, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:39866-DB W.A. No.599/2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3

¶33

KIADB and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - BMRCL.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even in case the request for acquisition of the left over property is not maintainable before this Court, his further request with regard to providing of access to the left over property is to be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

It is submitted that the respondent No.4, in the statement of objections, has specifically stated in para No.7 thereof that in case any of the remaining property in Sy.No.18/2 of Hebbagodi has been rendered inaccessible due to the acquisition, the appellants/petitioners may identify such portion of land, and consequently, BMRCL will take steps to form a public road from the National Highway, which will enable

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39866-DB W.A. No.599/2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the appellants/petitioners to access their property in Sy.No.18/2.

¶39

It is submitted that the appellants' right to

¶40

approach the BMRCL to enforce this assurance given by them in the statement of objections may be left open.

¶41

Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶42

are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that a mandamus to acquire land cannot be issued by this Court. However, we leave open the right of the appellants/petitioners to approach the respondent No.4 - BMRCL and to establish that the remaining property in Sy.No.18/2 of Hebbagodi is left without access and to seek the remedies as stated in the statement of objections, which is referred to above.

¶43

With the above, writ appeal stands disposed of .

¶44

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶46

BSR

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Prakashchand Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakashchand Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sheena Poojary Vs Smt Kamala Poojarthi

Smt.Kusuma G K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr K S Asok S/O Late K Sheshadri Iyer Vs K Vinod Kumar

Ms Pegah Zangeneh Naseri Vs the State of Karnataka

K C Umesh Vs Sri Gourav Gupta

The Commissioner Vs Sri Chandrashekhar