Dismissed¶¶73

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025WP/14687/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIAD Act 1966 Sections 28(2) and 29(2); KIADB acquisition, Nagavara Village, Sy.Nos.35/5 and 35/3, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk; residential sites 722 and 728; notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) addressed to erstwhile owners Srinivas Papaiah and Manjular; SLAO compensation order dated 02.05.2025; petitioner participation and objections rejected; writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits; Articles 226 and 227; WP No. 14687 of 2025 (LA-KIADB); Justice K.S. Hemalekha; decided 11.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Once the competent authority had adjudicated the claim and determined compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, the challenge to the subsequent notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) does not survive for consideration. ¶¶68

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) issued by respondent No.2-SLAO in the names of erstwhile landowners, without notice to the petitioners and in alleged violation of the mandatory procedure under the KIAD Act, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

¶¶68

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, in substance, seeks to reopen proceedings that have attained finality under the statute, which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶¶68

Key takeaways

In the absence of any jurisdictional error, procedural illegality or violation of statutory provisions in the order passed under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, no interference is called for.ratio¶¶72
Non-disclosure, at the time of seeking interim relief, of petitioner No.1's participation in the statutory proceedings and of the order dated 02.05.2025 would ordinarily warrant imposition of costs, but the Court refrains from doing so having regard to the nature of the dispute.obiter¶¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-KIADB) dismissed. Petitioners, claiming title to residential sites Nos.722 and 728 carved out of Sy.Nos.35/5 and 35/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, challenged a notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, in the names of erstwhile landowners, alleging non-service of preliminary/final notification and non-compliance with Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act. Held: respondent No.2 placed on record an order dated 02.05.2025 passed under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act determining compensation in respect of Survey Nos.35/5 and 35/3, and the record disclosed that petitioner No.1 had appeared before the SLAO and filed objections which were duly considered and rejected; once the competent authority adjudicated the claim and determined compensation, the challenge to the subsequent notice does not survive; the writ petition in substance sought to reopen proceedings that have attained finality under the statute, which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction; absent jurisdictional error, procedural illegality or violation of statutory provisions, no interference is called for. The Court noted that the Section 29(2) order and the petitioner's participation were not disclosed at the interim stage, and though such conduct would ordinarily warrant costs, it refrained from imposing costs having regard to the nature of the dispute.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 14687 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SYED AFSAR PASHA, S/O LATE SYED MUSTHAQ SHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR R.K.PALACE, KAVERI NAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶9

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI.GUNASHEKAR.REDDY.K S/O K.CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.HEIGHTS, 6^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN VEERANNAPALYA, HBCS LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶11

SRI.GIRISH.R S/O RAJANNA. M, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 189/1, 8^TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶12

SRI.SUJAY.SARATHY.R.V S/O VIJAY SARATHY.D, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.876, DASARA STREET DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

HC-KAR

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶20

HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-II K.I.A.D.B-K.R.I.D.E 1^ST FLOOR, ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

SRI. SHARAN P SABARAD.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 15.04.2025 BEARING NO. KIADB/KRIDE/BHOSWA/C2/R/8/56/NAGAWARA/01/2025-26, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT I.E, ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

¶30

to quash the notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) issued

¶31

by respondent No.2-The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

¶32

KIADB, (for short 'the SLAO') contending that the same

¶33

has been issued without notice to the petitioners, in the

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

names of the erstwhile landowners and in violation of the mandatory procedure under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ' the KIAD Act').

¶37

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶38

The petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner and possession of the residential site bearing No.722, carved out in the land in survey No.35/5 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk and petitioner No.2 claims to be absolute owner and possession of the residential site bearing No.728, carved out in the land in Survey No.35/3 of Nagavara Village, Bangalore North Taluk, formed a layout approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') through a Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited. The petitioners traced their title through a registered sale deed, possession certificate, khatha entries and tax paid receipts.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioners arose when the

¶40

respondent-KIADB issued a notice dated 15.04.2025

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

proposing to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, allegedly addressing the notice to erstwhile landowners Sri. Srinivas Papaiah and Smt. Manjular, who according to the petitioners, had no subsisting right, title or interest in the subject properties. The petitioners asserted that no preliminary or final notification under the KIAD Act has been served upon them and that the statutory requirement under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act was not complied. On these premises, the petitioners approached this Court and interim protection was granted at the preliminary stage on 28.11.2025 apprehending dispossession, which is reflected as below;

¶44

" The petitioners have assailed the notice dated 15.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure– S), issued in the name of erstwhile land owners Sri Srinivas and Smt. Manjula pertaining to lands in Sy. Nos.35/3 and 35/5, Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are the absolute owners in lawful possession of the residential sites bearing Nos.722, 728, 72 and 725 all carved out of Sy. Nos.35/5 and

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

35/3 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. It is submitted that though the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) claims to have acquired the said lands for the purpose of the Satellite Town Ring Road Scheme, the petitioners were never issued any notice of acquisition nor informed of any preliminary or final notification under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short).

¶49

It is further contended that the impugned notice has been addressed to the persons who have ceased to have any right or title over the property, and therefore, the proceedings are contrary to the mandatory procedure contemplated under the KIAD Act. It is further submitted that this Court, had earlier by order dated 20.05.2025, had stayed the impugned notice (Annexure–S). The grievance of the petitioners is that, under the guise of issuing the award notice, the respondent-authorities are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property. Photographs are produced to substantiate the apprehended threat.

¶50

Having regard to the submissions and the material on record, considering the imminent threat of dispossession, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim protection. The respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps, including

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

restraining the petitioners’ possession over the schedule property, until the next date of hearing.

¶55

Respondents shall file their objections, if any, by the next date of hearing.

¶56

List this matter on 10.12.2025.

¶57

The interim order granted on 20.05.2025 is extended till the next date of hearing ."

¶58

Respondent No.2 has placed on record the

¶59

order dated 02.05.2025 passed under Section 29(2) of the

¶60

KIAD Act determining compensation and evidencing participation of petitioner No.1 in the statutory proceedings.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were never served with any notice of acquisition under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶62

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner No.1 had appeared before the SLAO, filed objections and participated in the proceedings. Objections were considered and rejected and compensation was determined. Acquisition proceedings

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

have culminated in an order dated 02.05.2025 under

¶66

Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The material on record demonstrate that an order dated 02.05.2025 has been passed by the SLAO under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act determining compensation in respect of Survey Nos.35/5 and 35/3. The record further discloses that petitioner No.1 had appeared before the statutory authority and contested the proceedings by filing objections, which were duly considered and rejected.

¶67

Once the competent authority had adjudicated

¶68

the claim and determined compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, the challenge of subsequent notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-S) does not survive for consideration. The writ petition, in substance, seeks to reopen the proceedings that have attained finality under the statute, which is impermissible in the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court also notices that the participation of petitioner No.1 is in the statutory proceedings and passing of the order dated 02.05.2025 were not placed

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52430 WP No. 14687 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

before this Court at the time of seeking interim relief. Though such conduct would ordinarily warrant imposition of costs, this Court refrains from doing so having regard to the nature of the dispute.

¶72

In the absence of any jurisdictional error, procedural illegality or violation of statutory provisions in the order passed under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶73

dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶76

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Kumaresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Radha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri R Murthi Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Heerabai Vs the State of Karnataka

D. v. Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka