Karnataka High Court
Joseph Mathew vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47225
WP No. 26696 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 26696 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH MATHEW
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.V MATHEW,
NO. 311, 17TH CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, R.T NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHA KALAPPA B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
MAHALAKSHMI B M VIDHAN SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. BENGALURU METRO RAILCORPORATION
III FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
K.H. ROAD SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
J. RAVI SHANKAR
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER NO2, KIADB METRO,
14/3 MAHARISHI ARVINDA BHAVAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47225
WP No. 26696 of 2025
HC-KAR
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH A S, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. HARISH N N, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTICES/NOTIFICATIONS AT ANNEXURES-A
AND B i.e., NOTICE DATED 19.09.2018 BEARING NUMBER
KIADB/METRO/LAND ACQUISITION/ORR ISRO-3/2018-19
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ARISING OUT OF THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 140 SPQ 2018 DATED
28.08.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(2) OF THE KIADB
ACT, 1966 AND NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON
13.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND
NOTICE DATED 12.12.2018 BEARING NUMBER
KIADB/METRO/LAND ACQUISITION/ORR-ISRO-3/2018-
2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ARISING OUT OF
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.CI 140 SPQ 2018 DATED
28.11.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(6) OF THE KIADB
ACT, 1966 AND NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON
06.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 OR BY
ISSUING ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION
AS THE CASE MAYBE INSOFAR AS PETITIONER
CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47225
WP No. 26696 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned notices/notifications at Annexures-A and B i.e., Notice dated 19.09.2018 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR ISRO-3/2018-19 issued by Respondent No. 3 arising out of the Notification bearing No. CI 140 SPQ 2018 dated 28.08.2018 issued under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 13.09.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 and Notice dated 12.12.2018 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-3/2018- 2019 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification bearing No. CI 140 SPQ 2018 dated 28.11.2018 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 06.12.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 or by issuing any other appropriate writ or direction as the case maybe insofar petitioner concerned only.
b. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI Quashing the impugned notices/notifications at Annexures-C and D Notice dated 08.03.2019 bearing number KIADB/Metro/land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-3/2018-19 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR bearing No. CI 50 SPQ 2019 dated 07.03.2019 issued under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 and notified in the official gazette on 07.03.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 and notice dated 04.06.2019 bearing number KIADB/Metro/Land Acquisition/ORR-ISRO-4/2019-20 issued by Respondent No.3 arising out of Notification bearing No. CI 50 SPQ 2019 dated 30.05.2019 issued under Section 28(6) of the KIADB Act, 1966 issued by Respondent No.1 or by issuing any other appropriate writ or direction as the case maybe insofar petitioner concerned only.
c. In the alternative, issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to take necessary steps to denotify the above-mentioned notifications.
d. Award cost of the Petition and compensation for non-payment of compensation on account of the acquisition in 2018 and 2019, respectively;
e. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri. Harish N.N., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing site No.94 measuring 2,400 square feet (223 sq. meters) situated at Karthik Nagar, LRDE Employees Housing Cooperative Society's Layout, Doddanekkundi Village, Krishnapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (presently Bengaluru East Taluk), Bengaluru (for short 'the schedule property'). Under the preliminary notification followed by the final notification, respondent No.1 acquired the portion of the petitioner's schedule property for the benefit of respondent No.2-Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (for short 'BMRCL').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to a change in the metro alignment, the petitioner's land is no longer required for the project of respondent No.2-BMRCL. Similarly placed petitioner had approached this Court in the case of JANANI SUBRAMANIAN Vs. -6- NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 (JANANI SUBRAMANIAN), wherein this Court quashed the acquisition based on the categorical admission of BMRCL.
5. Respondent No.2 has taken an identical stand in the present case and in the statement of objections at paragraph No.4 unequivocally stated as under:
"4. It is submitted that due to a change in the alignment of the Metro line and consequential changes in the land plan, the petitioner's property, along with other properties, was found to be not required for the Bangalore Metro Rail project. Accordingly, BMRCL, by its letter dated 29.07.2019, requested the SLAO-KIADB to de-notify the said property of petitioner from acquisition. BMRCL has no objection to either the quashing of the acquisition notifications or the issuance of a notification under Section-4 of the KIAD Act, 1966 in this regard."
6. Respondent No.3 in the statement of objections at paragraph No.6 has stated as under: 1
WP.No.15526/2022 (LA-KIADB) D.D.23.11.2022 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR "6) It is submitted that, all things happen the 2nd respondent beneficiary has informed that in view of the change of circumstances and change of alignment the property in question is not required for its project. Under these peculiar circumstances this respondents could not take any further proceedings because the land is already notified and vest with the Government and beneficiary the matter was placed before the Board to take decision. The Board decided to exclude only certain properties and as the land in question as already Final Notification was issued and possession notice was also issue as such the Board was not in position to take any decision as the notifications were issued by the state Government.
As such state Government has to take a decision in this aspect by issuing notification in the manner known to law until and unless such notification is issued, the acquisition notifications will remain in force."
7. The core undisputed fact emerging from the objections of respondents No.2 and 3 is that the petitioner's land is no longer required for the metro project due to a change in the metro alignment, and BMRCL itself has recommended denotification to the KIADB. The sole -8- NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR purpose for which the acquisition was invoked, the beneficiary unequivocally states that the land is not required, the very foundation of the acquisition ceases to exist.
8. This Court in JANANI SUBRAMANIAN's case (supra), has already quashed identically situated notifications on the same stand of BMRCL. The present case stands on no different footing, and parity demands identical relief.
9. The submission of respondent No.3 that denotification must be initiated by the State Government does not dilute the admitted factual position that the acquisition purpose has failed.
10. Therefore, in the face of clean and categorical admission and in the absence of any contrary material, this Court finds no justification to sustain the impugned notifications. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:47225 WP No. 26696 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The writ petitioner is allowed.
ii) The impugned notifications dated 28.08.2018, 28.11.2018, 07.03.2019 and 30.05.2019 and the consequential notices dated 19.09.2018, 13.09.2018, 12.12.2018, 06.12.2018, 08.03.2019, 07.03.2019 and 04.06.2019 are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10