Smt. Yashodamma Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. VEERA PRATAP CHANDRU S/O AMMANA CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34-15-38/111, FLAT NO. T2, VIJAYALAKSHMI NAGAR, MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -533 308

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

SRI. THAKKELLAPALLI RAVI KUMAR S/O RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 101, MANA NUKALA PRIDE, PLOT NOS. 3 AND 4, PANCHAVATI COLONY, NEAR MANA STUDIO AND YSR NILAYAM MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 080

¶44

…PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶48

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶49

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

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

¶52

SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶53

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 12.08.2020 BEARING NO. CI 156 SPQ (E) 2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT,

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

1966 (ANNEXURE-F) IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC.

¶58

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification bearing No.CI 156 SPQ (E) 2020 dated 12.08.2020 issued by respondent No.1. They have also sought to quash final notification bearing No.CI 156 SPQ (E) 2020 dated 27.10.2025 issued by respondent No.1 and also to quash the impugned order bearing No.LAQ/640/25-26 dated 22.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 28(3) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1966' for short) alternatively the petitioner sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to conduct proper and fresh enquiry to ascertain the status of development of the schedule property by remitting the matter back to respondent No.3.

¶61

(i) The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land described in the schedule to the writ petition which were proposed for acquisition by the State Government for the

¶62

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

benefit of respondent No.2 for the formation of Vemagal Industrial Area Phase-II in terms of a preliminary notification dated 12.08.2020. Following this, the petitioners filed objections claiming that the lands mentioned in the schedule to the writ petition were all converted for non-agricultural residential purpose prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification and that in view of the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, the said lands were liable to be excluded from acquisition. Despite the above, a final notification dated 21.01.2023 was issued declaring the intention of the State Government to acquire the aforesaid lands for the aforesaid purpose.

¶65

(ii) The petitioners thereafter approached this Court in W.P.No.6195/2023 challenging the preliminary notification as well as the final notification on the ground that their objections were not considered and that there was no application of mind to the contentions urged therein. The said writ petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 27.01.2025 and the final notification dated 21.01.2023 was quashed and the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 was also quashed and a direction was issued to

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

respondent No.3 to reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners in the light of circulars dated 03.03.2007 and 18.03.2013 issued by State Government.

¶70

(iii) The petitioners contend that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a notice dated 16.06.2025 was issued requiring them to appear before respondent No.3 on 15.07.2025. However, no proceedings were held on 15.07.2025. They further contend that in their absence, respondent No.3 held proceedings on 16.07.2025 and rejected their objections in terms of an order dated 22.07.2025. Following the above, the State Government issued the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 on 27.10.2025.

¶71

3. Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶72

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶73

the petitioners were required to appear before respondent No.3 on 15.07.2025 and the petitioners accordingly appeared on the said date. However, respondent No.3 did not hold

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

proceedings on 15.07.2025, but held proceedings on 16.07.2025 and 17.07.2025 in the absence of the petitioners and thereafter, passed the order dated 22.07.2025 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. He submitted that following this, the State Government issued the final notification on 27.10.2025. Therefore, he contends that there was no effective consideration of the objections filed by the petitioners. He therefore, prays that the impugned notification as well as the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act, be set at nought.

¶77

Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 fairly submitted that though the petitioners were required to appear on 15.07.2025, the proceedings were held on 16.07.2025 and 17.07.2025. He also fairly conceded that the petitioners were not present on the date when the objections were taken up for consideration.

¶78

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 is quashed. Consequently, impugned notification bearing No.CI 156 SPQ

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:32397 WP No. 34577 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

2020 dated 27.10.2025 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 28(4) of the Act, 1966 is also quashed.

¶83

The respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners in the spirit of Section 28(3) of the Act, 1966 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In order to expedite the process, the petitioners shall appear before respondent No.3 on 09.07.2026 at 11:00 a.m.

¶84

Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections and

¶85

after hearing the petitioners, pass appropriate orders. It is thereafter open to respondent No.1 to take further proceedings in accordance with law after respondent No.3 determines the objections filed by the petitioners.

¶86

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶87

HJ

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt. Yashodamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Yashodamma v. 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

Dr P v Arvind Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M. G. Patila Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Lakshmidevi Babulal Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Fahmida Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T N Channananjappa Vs the State of Karnataka