Smt. Venkatamma Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23473 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. LATE V. SHIVARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, THYAVAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, THYAVAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-562 107.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

PURAVANKARA LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.130/1, ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE - 560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE MS. SHREYA V K JAIN

¶11

(BY SRI. ARVIND GHIMIRAY, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3 RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. H.N. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 BEARING NO. CI 58 S PQ 2024 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have challenged the preliminary notification

¶29

bearing No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by

¶30

the respondent No.1 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.126/2

¶31

of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Bengaluru Urban District. They have also challenged the final notification bearing No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2024 dated 02.12.2024

¶35

issued by the respondent No.1 in so far as the above property is concerned.

¶36

When this petition was listed for orders, it was brought to the notice of this Court that several similarly placed landowners had approached this Court in W.P. No.6708/2025 and connected petitions challenging the very same notifications and a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 08.01.2026, had allowed the writ petitions in part and quashed the orders passed by the respondent No.3 therein under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1966') and also the final notifications dated 03.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, 'KIADB') under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB to redo the proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 and take the issue to its logical end. Against the said order passed in W.P. No.33550/2024, a Writ Appeal in W.A.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

No.657/2026 was filed by the petitioner No.2 herein and another, which was disposed of in terms of a judgment dated 26.03.2026 and the relevant portion of the same reads as

¶41

follows:

¶42

"7. In view of the submission of learned Senior counsel Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., nothing survives further to consider the case of the appellants. In that view of the matter, while upholding the judgment of the writ Court, we observe that the SLAO has to consider the objections already filed and the additional objections if any to be filed independently without being influenced by the interpretation of the writ Court on the circulars, in accordance with the law.

¶43

8. The parties are at liberty to file additional objections and cite the judgments in support of their contentions within 10 days from today and the SLAO is directed to consider and pass reasoned order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one month thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the SLAO on 10.04.2026 ."

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that this petition may also be disposed off on the same lines.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶48

has no objection for disposal of the Writ Petition on the aforesaid lines.

¶49

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶50

passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. This petition is allowed in part .

¶53

ii. The final notification bearing No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå

¶54

2024 dated 02.12.2024, issued by the

¶55

respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy.No.126/2 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer / respondent No.3, who shall reconsider the objections of the petitioners objectively in accordance with law after hearing them.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25720 WP No. 23473 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

iii. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to raise any additional objections and if such additional objections are raised, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and dispose off the same as early as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of raising the objections or additional objections, if any.

¶59

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

SMA

¶61

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt. Venkatamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Venkatamma 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

Nissar Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Mariem Siddiqa Vs Mr T Abdul Mueed

Sri Hanumantha D Vs the State of Karnataka

Anthony Balaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkataswami Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka