Disposed¶36

Smt. M Akkarajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/35474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J), NC: 2026:KHC:15913, WP No. 35474 of 2025 (LA-KIADB), order dated 18-03-2026: petition DISPOSED OF on withdrawal memo; challenge to KIADB Act 1966 Section 28(1) preliminary notification dt. 28/11/2024 (No.C1155SPQ2024, Annexure-D) and Section 28(4) final notification dt. 29/05/2025 (No.CI155SPQ2024, Annexure-E) regarding Sy.Nos.27/1, 27/3 and 12/4, Ballagere Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk; respondents (State of Karnataka, KIADB, Special LAO KIADB) to pass award and disburse compensation as per law; no case law cited, no quantum fixed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in light of the respondents' stand; respondents to proceed further and pass an award in accordance with law and take steps for disbursal of compensation as per law. ¶36

Smt. M Akkarajamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15913 WP No. 35474 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 35474 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. M. AKKARAJAMMA W/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BALLAGERE VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 562 132.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO. 49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 1^ST FLOOR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15913 WP No. 35474 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MAHARSHI ARVINDA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A.S. HARSIH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KIADB ACT, 1966, DATED 28/11/2024 BEARING NO.C1155SPQ2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIADB ACT, 1966 DATED 29/05/2025 BEARING NO.CI155SPQ2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER'S LAND IS CONCERNED.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo

¶28

for withdrawal which reads as hereunder:

¶29

"It is submitted that, the Petitioner has decided to withdraw the writ petition filed before this Hon'ble Court by challenging the acquisition notification issued by the Respondents in respect of Sy.No.27/1, 27/3 and 12/4 of Ballagere

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15913 WP No. 35474 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk.

¶33

Hence, the Petitioner prays that, this Hon'ble court be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition and direct the Respondents to pay the monetary compensation to the Petitioner in respect of the above said lands in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes

¶35

that they would proceed further and pass an award in accordance with law and take steps for disbursal of compensation as per law.

¶36

Though the memo has been filed seeking for withdrawal of the petition, in light of the stand of the respondents, petition is disposed of in terms of the above discussion.

¶37

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶38

MCR

Smt. M Akkarajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M Akkarajamma 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

M/S S P Metals Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S. the Skylark Security Services, Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax

Prakash K B Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S Merushikhar Infra LLP Vs the Union of India

M/S Bnn Constructions Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-5.11

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