Naliniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH, 2^ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP) 1^ST FLOOR, MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54634 WP No. 17023 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD., NO.1, FORD GARDENS, OPP. M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF. MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAVINDRA V. REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI MALAHAR RAO, AAG FOR R-1; SRI B.S. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CI:196:SPQ:1998 DATED 19.12.1998 AND PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI:196:SPQ:1998 DATED 29.01.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER’S LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54634 WP No. 17023 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court to quash the impugned notifications dated 02.06.1999 and 29.01.2003 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition was subject matter of various litigation before this Court in several writ petitions and one such writ petition is in the case of Sri C. Valliappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others¹ (C. Valliappa) .

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and learned counsel appearing for respondent-Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd.(NICE), do not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the NICE submits that the present writ petition can be disposed of in

¶30

1 W.P.No.8400/2021 D.D 07.06.2021

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54634 WP No. 17023 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

similar terms Sri Natawarlal Jasu Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others² (Natawarlal Jasu) .

¶34

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that the submission of the NICE has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in another writ petition in B.Bettaiah Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others³ (B.Bettaiah) , wherein, this Court in similar terms of Natawarlal Jasu has disposed of this writ petition in respect of the petitioner.

¶35

In the present case, pursuant to the preliminary notifications dated 02.06.1999 and 29.01.2003, issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, no final notification has been issued. The petitioner being similarly placed to that of the petitioners in C. Valliappa and B.Bettaiah , the similar order needs to be passed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶36

2 W.P.No.4399/2023 D.D 28.07.2023

¶37

3 W.P.No.11140/2023 D.D 24.04.2025

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:54634 WP No. 17023 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶43

ii. The impugned preliminary notifications dated 02.06.1999 and 29.01.2003 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land concerned.

¶44

iii. However, it is made clear that this will not come in the way of the respondent issuing fresh notification, if so advised in accordance with law.

¶45

iv. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law, if any.

¶46

v. All the contentions in this regard are kept.

¶47

vi. Apart from this, the liberty is also reserved to respondent-NICE to proceed against the other respondents in accordance with law, if there is any grievance against them.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

¶51

AT

Naliniswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naliniswamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.R.Muthulakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Rashmi Vasudeva Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sunil K Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Samvidhana Cine Combines Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Sahadeva @ Sahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka