Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Brightsword Technologies Pvt Ltd (authorized signatory Mr. Kiran Poonacha). Respondents – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), Special Land Acquisition Officer‑2 (SLAO), State of Karnataka, Karnataka Udyog Mitra, and private landowners (Balakrishna Naidu, Sai Rani, P. Krishna Reddy, etc.).
  • Nature of dispute: Land‑acquisition for an "Information Technology Park" at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, with a proposed investment of Rs 43,000 crores. The appellant sought acquisition of 8.5 acres; the Board directed a 40% deposit of Rs 38,06,500 on 27‑Jan‑2004.
  • Procedural chronology:
  • Preliminary notification under KIAD Act dated 09‑Mar‑2004; joint survey report 07‑May‑2004.
  • Final notification 07‑Sep‑2004; challenged by landowners in multiple writ petitions (W.P. 46827/2004, etc.).
  • Single Judge orders 03‑Nov‑2009 and 04‑Nov‑2009 set aside the 2004 final notification and directed both landowners and the appellant to appear before the SLAO.
  • SLAO issued order 22‑Dec‑2009 (u/s 28(3)) accepting landowners’ objections; Gazette notification 24‑Jul‑2010.
  • Appellant filed W.P. 42253/2011 and W.P. 45347/2011; Single Judge on 06‑Mar‑2013 directed KIADB to provide alternative land and allowed the appellant to claim damages.
  • Subsequent court directions (08‑Oct‑2025, 13‑Oct‑2025, 16‑Oct‑2025, 30‑Oct‑2025) sought clarification on the availability of alternate land (High‑Tech Defence & Aero Space Park, Devanahalli; Aveerahalli, Dobaspet Industrial Area 4th Phase). KIADB affirmed no un‑litigated 8‑acre plot was available.
  • Appellant’s objections (20‑Nov‑2025) denied any request for alternative land and asserted ownership of the subject land based on O.S. 6021/2004 decree dated 31‑Jul‑2009, which declared Smt Rajeswaramma the absolute owner.
  • Title dispute details: Sale deed dated 08‑Dec‑1999 (registered 15‑Jan‑2002) in favour of Smt Rajeswaramma; subsequent sale deed 09‑Nov‑2001 to Sri P.M. Nagaraju and later to Respondent 5 (Balakrishna Naidu). Civil court decree (31‑Jul‑2009) upheld Rajeswaramma’s title; Respondent 5 filed RFA 895/2009 (pending).
  • The judgment reproduced Sections 28 and 29 of the KIAD Act, examined the requirement of notice under 28(2), hearing under 28(3), and the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
  • The court cited precedents (e.g., A. Janardhan Shetty v. Shantamma, Balasaheb & Ors. v. Government of Karnataka, MUKESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Supreme Court decisions on land‑acquisition, natural justice, and the effect of registration under the Registration Act.

Final Outcome

  • The court dismissed the writ appeals.
  • KIADB and the SLAO were directed to refund the amount deposited by Brightsword Technologies (Rs 38,06,500) with interest at 8% per annum from 28‑Dec‑2009** (date of SLAO order) until actual payment.
  • Payment to be made within eight weeks of the judgment.
  • The refund is without prejudice to the pending RFA 895/2009 and does not adjudicate the final title of the subject lands.
  • No order for allotment of alternative land was made, as the affidavit confirmed no suitable land is available.

Topics: Land Acquisition; Judicial Remedy; Title Dispute