Smt Manjushree Kabra v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40637( WP(No.(7112(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010154542026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RD DATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(7112(OF(2026((LA-KIADB)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SMT.,MANJUSHREE,KABRA, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, WIFE,OF,SHRI.,KIRTI,KUMAR,KABRA,,, RESIDING,AT,NO.A-905,,RNS,SHANTHI,NIVAS,,

YESHWANTHPUR,,BENGALURU,-,560,022., REPRESENTED,BY,HER,GPA,HOLDER,, MR.,SOUVIK,BAG, SON,OF,BANKIM,BAG, AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS,,, RESIDING,AT,2W,,B.K.,PAUL,LANE,, DUM,DUM,,KOLKATA-700030., …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,VACHAN,H.U.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( ( Digitally 1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, signedtiby HEMALATHA0J REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,OF,, Location: URBAN,DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,,, HIGH0COURT M.S.BUILDING,,BANGALORE,-,560,001,OF KARNATAKA ,

2., THE,KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREAS,, DEVELOPMENT,BOARD,, HEAD,OFFICE,, TH TH4 ,AND,5 ,FLOORS,,EAST,WING,,, KHANIJA,BHAVAN,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,, BANGALORE,-,560,001,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,COMMISSIONER., ,

3., M/S.,NANDI,INFRASTRUCTURE,CORRIDOR,, ENTERPRISES,LIMITED,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40637( WP(No.(7112(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010154542026( ( ( A,COMPANY,REGISTERED,UNDER, THE,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956, HAVING,REGISTERED,OFFICE,AT, NO.1,,MIDFORD,GARDEN,, OFFICE,AT,M,R,ROAD,, BANGALORE,-,560,001, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,H.L.PRADEEP,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SMT.,MONICA,PATIL,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.2;, SRI.,NITIN,PRASAD,,ADVOCATE,FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.3), THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, PRELIMINARY, NOTIFICATION,, DATED, 29.01.2003, BEARING, NO.CI, 196, SP, 098, ISSUED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT,NO.2,WITH,RESPECT,TO,SURVEY,NO., 159,MEASURING,4,ACRES,AND,SURVEY,NO.164,MEASURING,1,ACRE, AND, 28, GUNTAS, IN, KOMMAGHATTA, VILLAGE,, KENGERI, HOBLI,, BENGALURU,SOUTH,TALUK,,BENGALURU,(ANNEXURE,-,A)., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R.,NATARAJ, , ORAL(ORDER( ,The, petitioner, has, challenged, a, preliminary, notification,, bearing, No.CI:196:SPQ:98, dated, 29.01.2003,, issued, by, the, respondents',Authority.,,

2., The, petitioner, contends, that, she, is, the, owner, of, lands, bearing, Sy.Nos.164, and, 159, situate, at, Kommaghatta,

Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 01 acre 28 guntas and 04 acres respectively. The aforesaid land was proposed for acquisition by respondent No.1 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short (the K.I.A.D Act). She contends that after preliminary notification, no steps are taken by respondents to finalize the acquisition even after 23 years. 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.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submission and stated that the preliminary notification has not taken shape and respondent No.1 has not taken any steps from the year 2003 and hence, the preliminary notification is stillborn.

¶4Learned 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 No.2 also do not

dispute the above position. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the delay in taking steps to finalize the acquisition is solely attributable to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, liberty be reserved to respondent No.3 to initiate action against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶5The proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner gained shape by virtue of a notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated 29.01.2003. 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 proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been abandoned.

¶6Consequently, the petition is allowed. The notification bearing No.CI:196:SPQ:98 dated

29.01.2003 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 properties in any manner whatsoever. If the name of respondent No.1 is entered in the RTC of Sy.Nos.164 and 159 situate at Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 01 acre 28 guntas and 04 acres respectively, the same shall be deleted and the name of petitioner shall be restored. It is needless to mention if respondent No.3 has any grievance against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for not finalizing the acquisition within time, it is open for respondent No.3 to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35