Karnataka High Court
WA/986/2026 of KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AEA DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vs SRI SAHADEVA @ SAHADEVAIAH on 6 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33630-DB WA No. 986 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PRESENT AND CORRECT ADDRESS,
NO.2,2/1 AND 2/3, ACHARYA THULASIMARG,
1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2.
THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPTHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
CORRECT AND PRESENT ADDRESS
NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR,
MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
CFC BUILDING, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI SAHADEVA @ SAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE KAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.37,
VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
2.
SRI . K. NAGARAJU K.,
S/O LATE KAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.19,
CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KUMBALGODU POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 060.
3.
SRI. NAGARAJU,
S/O KAKAPPA @ RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.26/2,
17TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
SUBRAMANYA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
4.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY.
HC-KAR
5.
NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
OFFICE AT NO.1 MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6.
NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
NO.1 MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDENS,
OFF M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA A/W
SRI. H.L. PRADEEPKUMAR, SPL COUNSEL FOR R4, SRI. NITHIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6, SRI. SRIHARI, A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:19.12.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.24031/2025
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board1, is before us in this intra-Court appeal, impugning the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.24031/2025, whereby the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 19662, in respect of lands, inter-alia, the land bearing Sy.No.160 measuring 04 Acres situated at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk and District have been quashed on the ground that the Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966, was issued on 19.12.1998 and the Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966, was issued on 08.05.2003 and Gazetted on 05.07.2003, but no award was passed even till the order came to be passed by the Writ Court.
1 'the KIADB', for short 2 hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act, 1966', for brevity
HC-KAR
2. The Supreme Court of India in KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. BIMAL KUMAR SHAH3, has specifically held that the right to property under Section 300A of the Constitution of India would require the State to pay adequate and reasonable compensation to the person whose land is sought to be acquired for public purpose. If the adequate compensation is not paid, the land acquisition proceedings would get vitiated.
3. In the present case, even after 28 long years from the date of the Preliminary Notification and 23 years from the date of the Final Notification, no award has been passed, least to say payment of compensation to the land owners. In view thereof, the Writ Court has rightly held that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question have lapsed/ vitiated for not assessing and paying the adequate compensation. The power of eminent domain can be exercised by the State only in accordance 3 (2024) 10 SCC 533
HC-KAR
with the law. When the State seeks to acquire a citizen's land or property, it interferes with the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. However, such acquisition is permissible if the land or property is acquired for a public purpose and adequate compensation is paid on time.
4. In any acquisition proceedings, if there is no public purpose or it is acquired for private purposes, or the adequate compensation is not paid on time, such acquisition proceedings would be unconstitutional. We therefore, find no error in the order passed by the Writ Court and dismiss the appeal with cost of Rs.75,000/- to be paid to the ARMED FORCES BATTLE CASUALTIES WELFARE FUND (AFBCWF) A/C No.90552010165915 CANARA BANK, IFSC CODE: CNRB0019055, within a period of four weeks from today by the KIADB, failing which, the concerned Deputy Commissioner shall recover the amount from the appellant under the provisions of the
HC-KAR
Karnataka Land Revenue Act as arrears of land revenue and make the payment as directed by us.
5. Though we wanted to impose exemplary cost, but on the great persuasion by learned counsel Sri.K.Krishna, we have confined the cost only to Rs.75,000/-.
6. In view of dismissal of the Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 ct-vn