Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprised Limited Vs P… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprised Limited Vs P… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Single Judge's order directing the SLAO to pass a fresh award at the market value prevailing as on 22.04.2019 stands confirmed, with compliance ordered within one month of receipt of certified copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.154/10 measuring 2-00 Acres at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, stood lapsed on account of the award not having been passed and the compensation amount not paid. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the award in the present case was passed on 24.11.2022, i.e., after considerable delay, both writ appeals are dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Writ Court.

Key takeaways

The authorities concerned are directed to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.ratio¶107

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench: D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf JJ.; judgment per T.M. Nadaf J.), NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB, 05.06.2026. W.A.No.918/2026 (by KIADB and the SLAO, BMICP) c/w W.A.No.1674/2025 (by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd.), both under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenged the common order dated 04.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16103/2018 (LA-KIADB), whereby the Writ Court — noticing the observations of the Apex Court in Ram Chand v. Union of India as culled out in Bernard Francis — had directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award taking the market value prevailing as on 22.04.2019, the award for the land of writ petitioner P. Parthasarathy (Sy.No.154/10, 2-00 Acres, Kengeri Village) having been passed only on 24.11.2022. Held (dismissing both appeals and confirming the Writ Court's order): the award having come to be passed after considerable delay, the consideration of the Writ Court regarding the petitioner's entitlement does not require interference; the authorities concerned are directed to comply with the Writ Court's order within one month from receipt of certified copy. The disposition accords with this Bench's earlier disposal of W.A.No.1427/2025 and connected matters on 28.04.2026, which likewise dismissed appeals confirming Writ Court orders granting the benefit under Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1674 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

IN WA No. 918/2026

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE, OF SECRETARY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. NOTE - THE PRESENT AND CORRECT ADDRESS THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 2, 2/1 AND 2/3, ACHARAYA TULISI MARG, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KIADB BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT (BMICP) NO.3/2, GANDHINAGAR, KHENY BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 009.

NOTE - THE CORRECT AND PRESENT ADDRESS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP), NO 14/3, 1^ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVANDA BHAVAN, CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. P. PARTHASARATHY, S/O LATE PACHIAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, K.H.B.COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 079.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI ASHOK KHENY NO.1, MIDFORD ROAD, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI ASHOK KHENY NO.1, MIDFORD ROAD, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI VARMA KUMAR SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. S.A. AHAMED AAG, AND SIDDHARTH

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

3 -

HC-KAR

BABU RAO, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R2, SRI. S.B. MATHAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VIDHUR NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:04.07.2025 PASSED IN WP No.16103/2018 (LAKIADB) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

IN WA NO. 1674/2025

BETWEEN:

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISED LIMITED, NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SRINATH MANGALORE

NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED, NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SRINATH MANGALORE.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VIDHUR NAIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

P. PARTHASARATHY, SON OF LATE PACHIAPPAN, AGED 66 YEARS,

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

R/AT NO.1, K.H.B.COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 079.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF SECRETARY, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT (BMICP), NO 3/2, KHENY BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHAR SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NATARAJ G. KOTRE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, SRI. RAVI VARMA KUMAR SR. COUNSEL A/W S.A. AHMED, AAG AND SIDDHARTH BABU RAO, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R2 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V. ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:04.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16103/2018(LA-KIADB) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WP NO.16103/2018 AND ETC.,

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

5 -

HC-KAR

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF)

These appeals being W.A.No.918/2026 by KIADB and

W.A.No.1674/2025 by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited in W.P.No.16103/2018 calling in question the common order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court.

Under the impugned order, the Writ Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer¹ to pass fresh award taking market value prevailing as on 22.04.2019 in respect of land belonged to the Writ Petitioner in a time bound manner, with other directions.

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

1 for short, 'the SLAO'

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

The petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking

following reliefs:

a) "Declare that the acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondents in respect of land bearing Sy.No.154/10 measuring 2-00 Acres (Converted land) situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District is lapsed on account of not passing the award and paid the compensation amount.

b) Declare that by virtue of Section 25 of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the entire acquisition in respect of the land in question is lapsed.

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the land bearing Sy.No.154/10 measuring 2-00 Acres (Converted land) situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District in favour of the petitioner along with damages.

d) And grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit grant under the circumstance of the case in the interest justice and equity."

5. In the case on hand, admittedly the award

came to be passed on 24.11.2022. The Writ Court, in view

of identical facts involved in this and other Writ

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

Petitioners, which were connected and disposed of on 04.07.2025, at paragraph Nos.5 to 9, observed as follows:

"5. Having regard to the narrow compass within which the issue to be considered lies, it would be relevant to notice the observations of the Apex Court in the case of RAM CHAND AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS which was culled out in the judgment in Bernard Francis (supra) as under:

"16. On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that the petitioners have approached this Court only after making of the awards, or when awards were to be made, having waited for more than fourteen years, without invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32. It is true that this Court has taken note of delay on the part of the petitioners concerned in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court for quashing the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the proceedings for acquisition of the lands in question have remained pending for more than a decade, in the cases of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1975) 4 SCC 285] and Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852] . According to us, the question of delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32, has to be considered along with the inaction on the part of the authorities, who had to perform their statutory duties. Can the statutory authority take a plea that although it has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, but it is of no consequence because the person, who has been wronged or deprived of his right, has also not invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court for a suitable writ or direction to grant the relief considered appropriate in the circumstances? The authorities are enjoined by

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

the statute concerned to perform their duties within a reasonable time, and as such they are answerable to the Court why such duties have not been performed by them, which has caused injury to claimants. By not questioning, the validity of the acquisition proceedings for a long time since the declarations were made under Section 6, the relief of quashing the acquisition proceedings has become inappropriate, because in the meantime, the lands notified have been developed and put to public use. The lands are being utilised to provide shelter to thousands and to implement the scheme of a planned city, which is a must in the present set-up. The outweighing public interest has to be given due weight. That is why this Court has been resisting attempts on the part of the landholders, seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings on ground of delay in completion of such proceedings. But, can the respondents be not directed to compensate the petitioners, who were small cultivators holding lands within the ceiling limit in and around Delhi, for the injury caused to them, not by the provisions of the Act, but because of the non-exercise of the power by the authorities under the Act within a reasonable time?”

6. Moreover, it is well settled by now, that in the matter of determination and award of compensation for acquisition of lands, similarly situated persons are required to be compensated similarly. There cannot be discrimination in the matter of determination and award of compensation. It is also necessary to notice that in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, care is taken to ensure determination of compensation and award in a fair and just manner and that there shall not be discrimination. Section 28A of the Act, 1894 is put in place to ensure redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of a subsequent award passed by the Court. The

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

egalitarian concept of ensuring fair and just compensation has left its imprint throughout the statute.

7. Coming to the contention of the respondents that the Hon’ble Apex Court has exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and therefore such directions cannot be issued by this Court, it is relevant to notice paragraph No.52 of the judgment which reads as follows:

“52. No doubt that as already observed by us hereinabove, we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the SLAO could not have shifted the date and it could have been done only by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32/142 of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Single Judge of the High Court instead of relegating the appellants to again go through the rigors of determination by SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Even the Division Bench of the High Court on a hyper technical ground has nonsuited the appellants.”

8. It is therefore clear that the Apex Court expected the learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in this regard is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraphs No.54 to 56 of the judgment in Bernard Francis (supra) has eloquently captured the reasons for issuing such

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

direction to the SLAO to pass a fresh award taking the market value prevailing as on 22.04.2019. It is held that if the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300A a mockery."

This Court in W.A.No.1427/2025 and connected matters disposed of on 28.04.2026 in confirmation with the order passed by the Writ Court, dismissed the appeal as per Paragraph No.7 and 8, which reads as under:

"7. Learned counsel for the appellants to the query in view of the argument of learned Senior counsel Sri.D.L.N.Rao, on the facts of the case in other connected matters, submits that the facts of the case considered by the Writ Court is undisputed. However, he submits that an application is preferred before the Apex Court seeking clarification, wherein the Supreme Court has passed an interim order and the same is pending consideration.

We having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants are of the considered view that in all these cases, there is a considerable delay in passing the award. In that view of the matter, the consideration of the Writ Court regarding entitlement of the

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26890-DB WA No. 918 of 2026 C/W WA No. 1674 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioners to the benefit under BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ supra does not require any interference. In that view of the matter, these appeals sans merit and are accordingly, dismissed confirming the order passed by the Writ Court. However, no order as to costs."

In view of the fact that the award passed in the

present case on hand was on 24.11.2022, which is after considerable delay. In that view of the matter, these appeals are dismissed , confirming the order passed by the Writ Court, directing the authorities concerned to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10