Dismissed¶52

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/27651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIAD Act 1966; Section 28(1) preliminary notification 25.01.2021; Section 28(4) final notification 23.02.2023; NIMZ KIADB Bengaluru Rural; mortgagee heirs locus standi to challenge land acquisition; redemption deed 10.02.1998 alleged forged; O.S.No.166/2024 Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Nelamangala; compensation Rs.9,05,62,528 recovery and re-deposit mandamus; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the petitioners were left open to work out their remedy in accordance with law ¶52

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27651 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BYREGOWDA @ KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE C. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.323, 1^ST MAIN, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057

¶9

SRI. SHIVASWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE C. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, LAKSHMI NIVASA, ROCK LINE STUDIO MAIN ROAD 11^TH CROSS, VENUGOPALANAGAR, DODDABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 0073

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJANNA H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶16

4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU RURAL 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

¶21

SMT. SHRUTI PRAVEEN W/O K.G. PRAVEEN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O NO.96, KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

SRI. LIKITH R.P., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION, DATED 25.01.2021 BEARING REFERENCE NO.BENGALURU/SLAO(CI 13 SPQ E 2021) UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT, 1966 AND THEREBY DECLARE THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION IS WOULD HAVE LAPSED, ABANDONED AND IMPROPER IN RESPECT TO SCHEDULE LANDS OF THE PETITION IS CONCERNED AND THE SAME IS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE - H AND ANNEXURE-H(1) AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 23.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 and to declare that the impugned notification has lapsed. They have also sought for a declaration that the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in releasing the compensation of Rs.9,05,62,528/- in favour of the respondent No.4 is illegal and have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the compensation disbursed to the respondent No.4 and to deposit the same in O.S.No.166/2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Nelamangala.

¶32

(i) The petitioners contend that a deed of mortgage was executed in favour of their grandfather on 06.05.1951 and possession of the property was delivered to their grandfather by the predecessors of the respondent No.4. The petitioners claim that the respondent No.4 though having no subsisting right, title or interest, colluded with revenue officers and got the land bifurcated and new survey numbers assigned. The

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

petitioners claim that they came to know of this when they obtained the RTC's of the mortgaged properties.

¶37

(ii) The petitioners further contend that the respondent No.4 had created a fraudulent redemption deed and had used it for the purposes of getting her name restored in the RTC's. They contend that they had filed suit in O.S.No.166/2024 to declare the alleged redemption deed dated 10.02.1998 as forged, created and fabricated and non est in the eye of law and for a further declaration to declare that the family members are the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in terms of the mortgage deed dated 31.05.1951 and for consequential reliefs. They contend that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, a notification under Sections 3(1) and 1(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as ' the KIAD Act, 1966') was issued, following which, a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 was issued on 25.01.2021 and a final notification was issued on 23.02.2023 to acquire the aforesaid lands.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The petitioners claim that the petitioner No.1 gave a representation on 15.09.2021 requesting the respondent No.3 not to pass any award or pay compensation to any person including the respondent No.4. He followed up this representation by other representations dated 20.12.2022 and 21.09.2023. Nonetheless, the respondent No.3 released the compensation in favour of the respondent No.4. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the notifications under which the lands referred above were acquired and also sought for a declaration that the compensation released in favour of respondent No.4 was illegal and to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the compensation and re-deposit it in O.S.No.166/2024.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the mortgage deed is not redeemed as of date and that the money payable to the petitioners is not paid and the respondent No.4 has colluded with the revenue officials and has managed to receive the compensation. He therefore submits that the only way to recover the mortgage money is to assail the notification and

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

also seek for necessary directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the compensation paid to the respondent No.4 and redeposit the same in the suit filed by the petitioners.

¶46

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of the mortgagee. Therefore, they are not entitled to assail the notifications issued by the respondent No.1 under the provisions of the KIAD Act, 1966. He contends that if the petitioners have any grievance against the respondent No.4, they may proceed in accordance with law to recover the mortgage money or seek foreclosure. He submits that the petition is hence not maintainable.

¶47

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 also reiterated the above submissions. He also contends that the petitioners have sought the very same reliefs that they have sought for in O.S.No.166/2024. He thus contends that the petition is not maintainable.

¶48

As rightly contended by learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners being the

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27915 WP No. 27651 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

legal representatives of a mortgagee have no semblance of right to assail the notification issued by the respondent No.1 acquiring the lands that were the subject matter of the mortgage. The petitioners were bound to proceed against the mortgagor or the legal representative of the mortgagor namely the respondent No.4 herein to recover the mortgage money in the manner known to law. The petitioners have no locus standi to assail the notifications issued by the State Government.

¶52

In that view of the matter, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . It is open for the petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

BKN

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byregowda Alias Krishnegowda 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

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raja B M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Ramamani v Vs Bangalore Development Authority