Narayanareddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

Narayanareddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Final notification dated 02.12.2024 (No.CI 58 S PQ 2024 / No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2024) quashed insofar as it relates to Sy.No.125/1 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District; matter remitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer / respondent No.3 to reconsider the petitioners' objections objectively in accordance with law after hearing them; liberty to raise additional objections, which respondent No.3 shall dispose of in accordance with law within three months of their being raised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary notification dated 15.03.2024 bearing No.C1 58 5 PQ 2024 and the final notification dated 02.12.2024 bearing No.CI 58 S PQ 2024, issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 in respect of Sy.No.125/1 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, are liable to be quashed insofar as they pertain to the petitioners' schedule property. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed in part: the final notification bearing No.¹L 58 J¸ï¦PÀÆå 2024 (No.CI 58 S PQ 2024) dated 02.12.2024 issued by respondent No.1, insofar as it relates to the land bearing Sy.No.125/1 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 the petitioners. The preliminary notification dated 15.03.2024 was not quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are entitled to raise any additional objections before respondent No.3; if such additional objections are raised, respondent No.3 shall consider them in accordance with law and dispose of them as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of raising the objections or additional objections.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

KIADB acquisition – Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a landowner and Puravankara Ltd. challenging the preliminary notification dated 15.03.2024 (No.C1 58 5 PQ 2024, Annexure-B) and the final notification dated 02.12.2024 (No.CI 58 S PQ 2024, Annexure-A) issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 in respect of Sy.No.125/1 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. Similarly placed landowners had succeeded in W.P.No.6708/2025 (Co-ordinate Bench, order dated 08.01.2026), whereby the Section 28(3) orders and the final notifications dated 03.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 under Section 28(4) were set aside and the SLAO was directed to redo proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3); the Division Bench in W.A.No.657/2026 (order dated 26.03.2026) upheld the writ Court judgment and directed the SLAO to consider existing and additional objections independently, pass a reasoned order after personal hearing within one month, with appearance fixed on 10.04.2026. Held, disposing of the present petition on the same lines (with no objection from respondent Nos.2 and 3): petition allowed in part; the final notification dated 02.12.2024, insofar as it relates to Sy.No.125/1, stands quashed and the matter is remitted to the SLAO (respondent No.3) to reconsider the petitioners' objections objectively in accordance with law after hearing them; the petitioners may raise additional objections, which the SLAO shall consider and dispose of in accordance with law as early as possible and at any rate within three months from the date of their being raised. (R. Nataraj, J.)

NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24095 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

NARAYANAREDDY

S/O. LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS RESIDING AT S. MEDAHALLI BENGALURU 562 107

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

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ARVIND GHIMIRAY FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NO.14/3 RASTROTHANA BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

SRI. H.N.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 BEARING NO.C1 58 5 PQ 2024 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE B) AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED DECEMBER 02, 2024 BEARING NO.CI 58 S PQ 2024 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE A) AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the preliminary

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

15.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the Sy.No.125/1 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.

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

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

HC-KAR

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:

"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.

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 ."

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

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

In that view of the matter, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

i. This petition is allowed in part ;

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

2024 dated 02.12.2024, issued by the

respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy.No.125/1 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 petitioners

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25728 WP No. 24095 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Cite this judgement

Narayanareddy v. the State of Karnataka, WP/24095/2025 (KA), decided on 2 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

W.P.No.6708/2025 and connected petitionsRelied on¶37
W.A.No.657/2026Referred¶40

Open Authorities

Statutes4

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 196628(3) · 28(4)
Companies Act, 1956THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Preliminary notification dated 15.03.2024 bearing No.C1 58 5 PQ 2024 (Annexure-B) and final notification dated 02.12.2024 bearing No.CI 58 S PQ 2024 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.1 under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966, insofar as they pertain to the petitioners' schedule property (Sy.No.125/1 of Adigarakallahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District); the final notification dated 02.12.2024 was quashed in this order.Respondent No.1 - State of Karnataka (KIADB notification under the Act, 1966) · 02.12.2024
W.P.No.6708/2025 and connected petitions were filed by several similarly placed landowners challenging the very same notifications; a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 08.01.2026, allowed those writ petitions in part, set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 28(3) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and the final notifications dated 03.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 issued under Section 28(4), and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to redo the proceedings from the stage of Section 28(3) and take the issue to its logical end.
A Writ Appeal (W.A.No.657/2026) was filed against the Co-ordinate Bench order and was disposed of on 26.03.2026; the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the writ Court and directed the SLAO to consider the objections already filed and any additional objections independently, without being influenced by the writ Court's interpretation of the circulars, to pass a reasoned order after personal hearing within an outer limit of one month, and fixed appearance of the parties before the SLAO on 10.04.2026.

View full history

Bench / Coram

R. Nataraj

Parties & counsel