Mr. R. Nagesh Vs State of Karnataka

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, 'EAST WING', KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE -560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

SRI. H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34526 WP No. 20492 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.CI 443 SPQ 2009, BANGALORE DATED 09.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE- B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND BEARING SY.NO.182/4A1 MEASURING 25 GUNTAS, 182/4A2 MEASURING 25 GUNTAS, 182/5 MEASURING 36 GUNTAS, 182/6 MEASURING 18 GUNTAS, 182/7 MEASURING 20 GUNTAS, 182/8 MEASURING 22 GUNTAS OF LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No.¹L 443 J¸ï ¦ PÀÆå 2009 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 09.06.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, 'the KIAD Act') in so far as it relates to the land bearing: Sy. Nos.182/4A1 measuring 25 guntas; 182/4A2 measuring 25 guntas; 182/5 measuring 36

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34526 WP No. 20492 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

guntas; 182/6 measuring 18 guntas; 182/7 measuring 20 guntas; and 182/8 measuring 22 guntas, all situate at Linganahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk.

¶29

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the lands mentioned in the aforesaid Survey numbers. The respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 09.06.2010 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for implementation of the I.T.I.R Project. The petitioner received notice dated 08.09.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act on 09.10.2023 and he filed detailed objections before the respondent No.2 on 17.10.2023 contending that he had established a poultry farm, labour sheds, godown, egg storage station, water tank and houses etc. and that the said land cannot be acquired for the purpose of the Project. Based on the objections so filed, an enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer after inspecting the land, recommended to drop the land from acquisition. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 issued a final notification dated 01.10.2024 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act excluding the lands mentioned above from acquisition. Petitioner claims that he has been requesting the respondents for issuance of an endorsement / NOC to the

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34526 WP No. 20492 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

effect that the lands in question are not acquired. However, the respondent No.2 has issued an endorsement dated 08.01.2025 stating that the above said lands are not included in the final notification. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking to quash the preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to the lands in question.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so long as a notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act issued by the respondent No.1 remains, it would create a doubt regarding the title of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question and therefore, prays that the preliminary notification may be set at nought.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact that in the final notification dated 01.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.1, the land in the aforesaid survey numbers belonging to the petitioner are not included.

¶35

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for

¶36

the respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that in order

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34526 WP No. 20492 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

to restore unimpeachable title of the petitioner in respect of the land in the aforesaid survey numbers, it is imperative to quash the preliminary notification issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act. Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The petition is allowed .

¶42

ii. The impugned notification bearing No.¹L 443 J¸ï ¦

¶43

PÀÆå 2009 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 09.06.2010 in so far as the land

¶44

bearing Sy. Nos.182/4A1 measuring 25 guntas; 182/4A2 measuring 25 guntas; 182/5 measuring 36 guntas; 182/6 measuring 18 guntas; 182/7 measuring 20 guntas; and 182/8 measuring 22 guntas, all situate in Linganahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, is quashed. If the name of the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 is included in the revenue records relating to the land in the above survey numbers pursuant to the preliminary notification referred above, the same shall stand deleted and the name of the petitioner shall stand restored.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:34526 WP No. 20492 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2 are permitted to file their respective memo(s) of appearance within 10 days from today.

¶49

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

SMA

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Mr. R. Nagesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. R. Nagesh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

D.Ksihna Singh Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Paramashivaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Valabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pushpa Latha M Vs the State of Karnataka