Sri Lokesh Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

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

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.R.CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

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) BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED DECEMBER 02, 2024 BEARING NO. CI 58 S PQ INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE -A) BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25392 WP No. 23782 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have challenged the preliminary

¶33

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

¶34

issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the Sy.No.126/2 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. They have also challenged the final notification bearing No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2024 dated 02.12.2024 in so far as the above property is concerned.

¶35

When this petition was listed for preliminary hearing, 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 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 08.01.2026 had allowed the writ petitions in part and set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1966') and also the final notifications dated 03.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 and directed the Special Land

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25392 WP No. 23782 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'KIADB') to redo the proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 and take the issue to its logical end. A Writ Appeal was thereafter filed in W.A.No.657/2026, which was disposed of in terms of an order dated 26.03.2026 and reads as follows:

¶39

"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.

¶40

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 ."

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25392 WP No. 23782 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

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

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has no objection for disposal of the Writ Petition on the aforesaid lines.

¶45

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶46

passed:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. This petition is allowed in part ;

¶49

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

¶50

2024 dated 02.12.2024, issued by the

¶51

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

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25392 WP No. 23782 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

petitioners objectively in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners. 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 of 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.

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Lokesh Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lokesh Reddy 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

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

Mr Raveendra N Vs the State of Karnataka