Allowed

Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/39297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought direction to KIADB to deposit acquisition compensation in a pending title suit given rival claims. All parties consented; the Court directed deposit of compensation with all benefits into the suit within four weeks, investment in a nationalized bank deposit, and restrained parties from obstructing use of the acquired property.

What did the court decide?

KIADB directed to deposit compensation with all benefits in O.S. No.1685/2025 within four weeks; civil Court to invest it in interest-bearing deposit; parties not to obstruct use of property.

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.39297/2025 (GM-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.JAYAMMA AGE 84 YEARS D/O LATE SEETHAPPA R/AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT KUNDANA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.14/3, CFC BUILDING MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN 1^ST FLOOR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

SRI. L.K. NANJEMARIYAPPA AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, R/AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.N. VASUDEVAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. LINGARAJU K S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOA) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT DETERMINED AND PAYABLE TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 29(2) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 IN TERMS OF NOTICE DATED 04/11/2025 (ANNEXURE-F) IN O.S NO.1685/2025 PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR WITH A REQUISITION TO INVEST THE SAID AMOUNT IN TERM DEPOSIT OF ANY OF THE NATIONALIZED BANK TO FETCH BETTER RATE OF INTEREST.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner asserts ownership of an extent measuring 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy. No.254/1, old Sy. No.254 of Linganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk [ the subject property ]. The petitioner seeks direction to M/s. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [ KIADB ] to deposit the compensation payable under Section 29[2] of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1996 [for short, 'the Act' ] with the civil Court in O.S. No.1685/2025 with a further direction for reinvestment of this money in a deposit subject to further orders in the suit.

¶31

The petitioner contends that her father has purchased the subject property way back in the year 1937 and that she is entitled to the subject

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

property but the third respondent, a complete stranger to the property, is staking a claim and making efforts to obtain compensation payable for the acquisition of the subject property and therefore she has filed the suit in O.S. No.1685/2025 with the learned Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, and that there is an order of temporary injunction in such suit against M/s. KIADB from disbursing the amount.

¶36

This Court, on 27.01.2026, has permitted Sri H N Vasudevan, a learned standing counsel for M/s. KIADB, to accept notice and secure instructions for disposal of the petition. On instructions, Sri H N Vasudevan submits that because of the rival claim and the pending suit, M/s. KIADB will deposit the determined compensation determined with all the other benefits admissible in law in the suit for disbursement subject to orders in the suit, and that this Court must ensure that neither the petitioner nor the third respondent must obstruct the use of the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

subject property by M/s. KIADB in putting the subject property to use for the purpose for which it is acquired.

¶41

Sri R Srinivasa Gowda, the learned

¶42

counsel for the petitioner, submits that indeed the petition could be disposed of calling upon M/s. KIADB to deposit the compensation amount with all benefits in the suit subject to orders therein and the petitioner cannot obstruct the use of the subject property by M/s. KIADB/its allottees. Sri K S Lingaraju, the learned counsel for the third respondent, is heard in the light of these circumstances. Sri K S Lingaraju is also categorical that the third respondent would also participate for a decision in his favour in the suit and will also not obstruct M/s. KIADB from using the subject property. In the light of the circumstances and submissions, as afore, the following:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:6111 WP No.39297/2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORDER

¶47

[a] The petition is allowed calling upon M/s.KIADB to deposit the compensation payable for the acquisition of the subject property with all the benefits permissible in law in the suit in O.S. No.1685/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur. The needful in this regard shall be done within four [4] weeks from today.

¶48

[b] The civil Court shall invest this amount in an interest yielding deposit with a Nationalized Bank subject to its further orders.

¶49

[c] The petitioner and the third respondent shall not obstruct the use of the subject property by M/s. KIADB or any of its allottees.

¶50

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

AN/-

Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Anjandevi

Smt Bhuvana N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandraprakash.N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Afreen Khanum Vs State of Karnataka

Aslam Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka