Allowed¶79

Sri B N Venkatesha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025WP/18495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB acquisition lapse; writ petition allowed; preliminary notification No.CI/422/SPQ/2005 dated 03.11.2006 and final notification No.CI/212/SPQ/2007 dated 07.05.2007 quashed; no award passed; no compensation determined; no possession for nearly twenty years; reasonable period doctrine; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act 1966; Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk; Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40), 04 acres; certiorari; abandonment of acquisition; Articles 226 and 227; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; NC: 2025:KHC:39974.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) quashed insofar as the petitioners' schedule property (Sy.No.152, Old Sy.No.40, 04 acres, Bandikodigehalli Village) is concerned.

Sri B N Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and final notification dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) in respect of the petitioners' land Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40), measuring 04 acres at Bandikodigehalli Village, have lapsed or stand abandoned for want of award, compensation and possession within a reasonable time. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

As evident from the endorsement produced by the petitioners, the respondents took no steps beyond issuing the notifications: no award was passed, no compensation determined and no possession taken of the schedule property.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

Although the KIADB Act does not prescribe a fixed statutory period for completing acquisition, where no specific time limit is prescribed the authority must act within a reasonable period; a delay of nearly two decades without any progress cannot be termed reasonable.

¶71

Key takeaways

The prolonged inaction of the respondents indicates that the acquisition proceedings have been virtually abandoned.ratio¶71
Consistent with the series of earlier decisions of this Court cited before it, when no award is passed and possession is not taken within a reasonable time, the acquisition proceedings must be treated as lapsed.ratio¶72
The Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) deserve to be, and are, quashed as having lapsed and been abandoned on account of inordinate and unreasonable delay in completing the acquisition proceedings after issuance of the Final Notification.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (LA-KIADB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by five co-owners of land Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40), measuring 04 acres at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka), seeking certiorari to declare and quash the preliminary notification No.CI/422/SPQ/2005 dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure-A) and final notification No.CI/212/SPQ/2007 dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-B) issued by the State under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966, and mandamus against interference with possession. An endorsement dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure-F) of the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2 recorded that, except issuing the notifications, no further steps had been taken. HELD: Although the KIADB Act prescribes no fixed period for completing acquisition, the authority must act within a reasonable time; inaction of nearly two decades without passing an award, determining compensation or taking possession is unreasonable and shows the acquisition was virtually abandoned. Following the consistent line of decisions of this Court cited before it, the Court quashed both notifications as lapsed and abandoned insofar as the petitioners' schedule property is concerned. Single judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha; decided 10 October 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:39974.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18495 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI B N VENKATESHA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 356 BAGALUR , JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE 562 149.

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 305 BAGALUR , JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE 562 149.

¶9

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

¶10

SMT. JYOTHI D/O NARASIMHA M AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶11

SMT. B N DEEPA D/O NARASIMHA M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. MANOJ B N S/O NARASIMHA M AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶13

THE PETITIONER No.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 352A

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

BAGALUR, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE 562 149.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A. V, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4th FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DECLARING THAT THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/422/SPQ/2005, BANGALORE, DATED 03.11.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI/212/SPQ/2007, BANGALORE, DATED 07.05.2007

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO. 152 (OLD SY.NO.40) MEASURING 04 ACRES SITUATED AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (YELAHANKA) AS ABANDONED, LAPSED AND NON-EST AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶33

following reliefs:

¶34

"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order declaring that the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40) measuring 04 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as abandoned, lapsed and non-est;

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the preliminary notification bearing No.CI/422/SPQ/2005, Bangalore, dated 03.11.2006 vide annexure-A and final notification bearing No.CI/212/SPQ/2007, Bangalore, dated 07.05.2007 vide annexure-B issued by the First Respondent in respect of the Petitioners' land bearing Sy.No.152 (Old Sy.No.40) measuring 04 acres situated Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Yelahanka) as the First and Second Respondents have not completed the acquisition proceedings within reasonable time;

¶38

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.

¶39

(d) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB and perused the material on record.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Preliminary Notification was issued on 03.11.2006 at Annexure-A notifying the schedule property along with other properties for formation of an industrial area and Final Notification was issued on 07.05.2007 at Annexure-B, the respondents have not taken any steps to pass the award or to take possession of the schedule properties even after a lapse of nearly twenty years. It is contended that the proceedings have remained at the stage of mere notification and have not been followed by any substantive steps for acquisition. Reliance is placed on the endorsement dated 03.04.2021 at Annexure-F issued by respondent No.3, wherein it is clearly stated that except issuing notifications, no further steps have been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon several decisions of this Court which have been affirmed by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that where no award is passed and compensation is not paid, even after

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

an inordinate lapse of time, the acquisition proceedings

¶48

deserve to be quashed. The decisions referred are:

¶49

(i) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. ALOKAM VENKAYAMMA¹

¶50

(ii) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶51

Vs. K.B.LINGARAJU²

¶52

(iii) SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS³ , confirmed in the case of THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI. MUNIANJINAPPA AND ANOTHER⁴ followed by RP.No.606/2022 dated 28.12.2022, which came to be dismissed and confirmed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No(s).5692/2023."

¶53

Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment

¶54

of this Court in the case of M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND

¶55

1 WA.No.6387/2017 D.D 07.03.2018.

¶56

2 WA.No.6819/2017 D.D 04.02.2020.

¶57

3 WP.No.10583/2016 D.D 01.04.2021

¶58

4 WA.No.1268/2021 D.D 17.03.2022

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS⁵ ,

¶63

wherein it was reiterated that failure to take any steps for two decades amounts to abandonment of acquisition.

¶64

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-KIADB, in support of statement of objections contends that under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') no specific time frame is prescribed for passing an award, and that the concept of “reasonable period” must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is submitted that the acquisition cannot be said to have lapsed merely because some time has elapsed.

¶65

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.

¶66

The admitted fact remains that the Preliminary Notification was issued in the year 2006 followed by the Final Notification in the year 2007. However, as evident

¶67

5 WA.No.238/2025 D.D 25.09.2025

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

from the endorsement produced by the petitioners, the respondents have not taken any further steps to complete the acquisition proceedings, such as passing the award, determination of compensation or taking possession of the schedule property.

¶71

Even though the Act does not prescribe a fixed statutory period for completion of the acquisition proceedings, the settled legal principle is that where no specific time limit is prescribed, the authority must act within a reasonable period and delay of nearly two decades without any progress cannot, by any stretch of imagination be termed as reasonable. The prolonged inaction of the respondents indicates that the acquisition proceedings have been virtually abandoned.

¶72

In similar circumstances, this Court in the series of decisions cited above, have consistently held that when no award is passed and possession is not taken within the reasonable time, the acquisition proceedings must be

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39974 WP No. 18495 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

treated lapsed. Thus the Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 at Annexure-A and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 at Annexure-B deserve to be quashed as having lapsed and abandoned on account of inordinate and unreasonable delay in completing the acquisition proceedings after issuance of the Final Notification.

¶76

In the result, this Court pass the following;

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶79

ii) The Preliminary Notification dated 03.11.2006 at Annexure-A and Final Notification dated 07.05.2007 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners' schedule property is concerned.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶82

PHM

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri B N Venkatesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Venkatesha v. 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

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B S Nagarathnamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jaimuni Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Basi Redd Jayrami Reddy Vs the Asst Executive Engineer