Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH, 2^ND FLOOR, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27363 WP No. 4660 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BMICP), 1^ST FLOOR, MARASHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, NO.1, MID FOR HOUSE, OFF M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI.RAVINDRA V REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 03.07.1999 BEARING NO. CI-196-SPQ98 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A, ONLY AS REGARDS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARE CONCERNED IN SO FAR AS PETITIOENR IS CONCERN AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27363 WP No. 4660 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged a preliminary notification, bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 03.07.1999, issued by the respondent Authority and to declare that the proceedings not having progressed from the year 1999 is deemed to have lapsed.

¶28

Petitioner contends that she is the owner of land in new Survey No. 285, old Survey No.4 of Taripura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk. The aforesaid land was proposed for acquisition by respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short (the K.I.A.D Act). She contends that after preliminary notification, no steps are taken by respondent No.1 to finalize the acquisition. Therefore, the preliminary notification issued is abandoned. Consequently, she contends acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. Therefore, she seeks for the reliefs as mentioned above.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶30

above submission and stated that the preliminary notification has not taken shape and respondent No.1 has not taken any

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:27363 WP No. 4660 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

steps from the year 1999 and hence, the preliminary notification is stillborn.

¶35

Learned AGA, does not dispute the fact that respondent No.1 has not taken any steps to issue a final notification, pass an award and to take over possession of the property. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 also do not dispute the above position. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the delay in taking steps to finalize the acquisition is solely attributable to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and therefore, liberty be reserved to respondent No.4 to initiate action against respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶36

The proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner gained shape by virtue of a notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 03.07.1999. Respondent No.1, who was bound to finalize the notification within a reasonable time, has failed to do so. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept waiting endlessly and she cannot be restrained from putting the property to better use. As the respondents have failed to take out necessary steps for finalization of the acquisition, the

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:27363 WP No. 4660 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been abandoned.

¶41

Consequently, the petition is allowed . The notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 03.07.1999 issued by respondent No.1 is quashed and it is declared that the proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner having not been finalized is non est in the eyes of law and does not restrict the rights of the petitioner in respect to the above schedule property in any manner whatsoever. If the name of respondent No.1 is entered in the RTC of Sy.No.285 of Taripura village, the same shall be deleted and the name of petitioner shall be restored. It is needless to mention if respondent No.4 has any grievance against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for not finalizing the acquisition within time, it is open for respondent No.4 to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt Chikkatayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chikkatayamma 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

Mr K M Rasheed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karntaka

Sri Yellappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajan P Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka