Disposed¶42

Smt. B. M. Radhamani v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2026WP/34235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB land-acquisition compensation writ petition (LA-KIADB) against Annexure G agreement and seeking mandamus for Rs.40,07,302/- with interest; settled out of court between petitioner and Respondents 3-5 (Rs.6,00,000/- paid 20.03.2026); joint memo filed; petition withdrawn and disposed of without adjudication; Karnataka HC, 23.03.2026, S Sunil Dutt Yadav J; no merits holding, limited citation value.

What did the court decide?

Permission in effect to withdraw the writ petition following the recorded settlement; petition disposed of without adjudication while recording the terms of the joint memo; no compensation awarded by the court. ¶42

Smt. B. M. Radhamani Vs the Karnataka Industrial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16174 WP No. 34235 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 34235 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. B. M. RADHAMANI D/O S M MUNIVENKATAPPA, W/O M VIJAYAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1954/12, SOUTH END 'D' CROSS, 9^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 069

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, RACECOURSE ROAD,

¶15

BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶16

M/S. BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16174 WP No. 34235 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

3^RD FLOOR, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. UMA SOUMYA BUILDERS PVT LTD), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶20

M/S. UMA ESTATES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY

¶21

HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, UMA ADMIRALITY, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HDFC BANK BUILDING, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. G. SRIDHAR REDDY,

¶22

MR. G. SRIDHAR REDDY MAJOR

¶23

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF M/S. UMA SOUMYA BUILDERS PVT LTD

¶24

MRS. UMA REDDY MAJOR W/O G. SRIDHAR REDDY

¶25

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.8-2-703/A/6/B, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034

¶26

… RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI AJAY SHANKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16174 WP No. 34235 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.3 TOWARDS LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION PAYMENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE G AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of the agreement executed between respondents 1 and 3 as well as another agreement between respondents 1 and 5. Petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.40,07,302/- with interest.

¶34

During the pendency of the matter, a joint memo is filed which reads as hereunder:

¶35

"The petitioner respectfully submits that during the pendency of the above Writ Petition, the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent nos. 3 to 5 has been amicably settled in respect of the subject

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:16174 WP No. 34235 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

matter of acquisition involved in the present Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said settlement, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (rupees Six Lakhs only) has been paid to the Petitioner through RTGSHDFCR52026032084245296 on 20.03.2026 towards full and final settlement, and the Petitioner submits that all past dues of the Petitioner stand fully settled with Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the said Respondents acknowledge and accept the same, and no further claims survive.

¶40

In view of the above settlement, the Petitioner does not wish to prosecute the above Writ Petition and therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit withdrawal of the Writ petition as settled between the parties, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶41

3. In light of the same, the petition is disposed of

¶42

as not calling for adjudication while recording the terms of the joint memo.

¶43

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶44

Smt. B. M. Radhamani v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. M. Radhamani v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

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

M/S Emmanuvel Scrap Works Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (ENFORCEMENT)-2

Yeldur Narayanswamy Nagabushana Vs the Union of India

Sri Pokala Malleshwara Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax

Umesh Kollira Muddappa (Huf) Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Shri Shivakumar N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prakash C M Vs the State of Karnataka