THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR.versusANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
2017 INSC 7425 January 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, sought to acquire land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) and issued preliminary and final notifications in 2000 and 2005. The respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that no award under Section 11-A of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act…
P. PARTHASARATHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
2011 INSC 60524 August 2011Dismissed
Petitioner P. Parthasarathy owned about 2 acres of land in Kengeri, Karnataka, which the State sought to acquire for the Bangalore‑Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. After a preliminary notification under s.28(1) and no objection from the petitioner, a fin…
STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUNDversusWEST BENGAL SMALL IND. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
2019 INSC 117021 October 2019Dismissed
The Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), a trust created to acquire stressed loans of IDBI, stepped into the shoes of IDBI as mortgagee of Wellman Incandescent India Ltd., which had taken a lease of industrial premises from the West Bengal government. Wellman ceased manufacturing activities, leading the West Beng…
M/S. WIDIA (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 41021 August 2003Dismissed
The case concerned the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 and its amendment in 1993 which inserted the words "retrospectively or prospectively" in Section 3(1). The petitioners challenged the validity of the amendment for lack of the President's assent under Article 304(b) of the Constitution, and also questione…
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION AND ORS.
2006 INSC 23520 April 2006Dismissed
The State of Karnataka entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and a Framework Agreement (FWA) with a private consortium to develop the Bangalore‑Mysore Infrastructure Corridor, requiring acquisition of about 20,193 acres of land. Several public‑interest writ petitions challenged the FWA on grounds of fraud, misrepr…
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)versusAHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2022 INSC 111219 October 2022Disposed off
The Supreme Court interpreted the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which defines 'charitable purpose' for entities advancing 'any other object of general public utility' (GPU). The Court held that a GPU charity cannot engage in trade, commerce, or business, or provide services in relation thereto, …
BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY & ANR.versusNANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ORS.
2020 INSC 39919 May 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. and Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (the Project Proponents) could obtain a commencement certificate for a 42‑acre group housing scheme that was not part of the five townships approved under the Framework Agreement (FWA) and the P…
S.S. DARSHAN ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
1995 INSC 73214 November 1995Dismissed
The appellants challenged two notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring 11 acres 36 gunthas of land in Bangalore, alleging that the acquisition was for a private limited company and not a public purpose, and that the urgency provisions of Section 17 could not be invoked. The State argued t…
CHAIRMAN AND M.D., B.P.L. LTD.versusS.P. GURURAJA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 53913 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) allotted 175 acres of industrial land to B.P.L. Ltd. under Regulation 13, a special‑case provision, after a High Level Committee’s deliberation. A public‑interest litigation challenged the allotment on grounds that the Board exceeded its statutory purpose, fixed a…
PHATU ROCHIRAM MULCHANDANIversusKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ORS.
2014 INSC 18512 March 2014Dismissed
The appellant, a promoter/shareholder of Relectronics Ltd., challenged the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board’s termination of a lease‑cum‑sale agreement for two industrial plots allotted to the company, arguing that the company owned the land and that the Board required prior court permission under the Compa…
M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
2022 INSC 106011 October 2022Disposed off
M/S. M.S.P.L. Limited and its wholly‑owned subsidiary sought to set up an iron‑ore palletisation plant and an integrated steel plant in Karnataka. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, acquired 1,034 acres of land after obtaining approvals from the…
GREGORY PATRAO AND ORS.versusMANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED & ORS.
2022 INSC 69311 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Karnataka government acquired land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for industrial development, and the original owners were compensated. After acquisition, Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL) was allotted the land by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (…
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARDversusNANDI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
2007 INSC 74311 July 2007Case Partly allowed
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board allotted a 2.5‑acre plot to Nandi Cold Storage Pvt Ltd for a cold‑storage project. Subsequent litigation by the original landowners resulted in a High Court stay order, preventing construction, and the company's loan from Karnataka State Financial Corporation was cancell…
HMT LTD. AND ANR.versusMUDAPPA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 1178 February 2007Disposed off
The owners of a 2‑acre‑37‑guntha land (respondents) obtained a decree for possession after the watch‑factory (HMT Ltd.) had unlawfully occupied an extra 39 gunthas beyond the 1‑acre‑38‑guntha acquired in 1978. While execution of the decree was pending, HMT Ltd. requested the Karnataka Government to issue a preliminary …
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR.versusMIS. PRAKASH DAL MILL & ORS.
2011 INSC 2736 April 2011Dismissed
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board allotted industrial sites to respondents under lease‑cum‑sale agreements that contained a clause allowing the Board to fix the final price "as soon as it may be convenient." After a gap of 13 years the Board issued letters demanding a substantially higher final price, wh…
MALLAPPA DEAD BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
2018 INSC 11283 December 2018Disposed off
The State of Karnataka acquired 24 acres of land in Hubli under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for an industrial estate. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation at Rs.500 per Gunta, which was challenged and the Reference Court fixed the market rate at R…
M/S. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 2123 April 2003Dismissed
Ahuja Industries Ltd purchased a parcel of land but its title was not entered in the revenue records. The Karnataka government acquired the land for industrial development under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) on 3 Oct 1997 and gazetting it on…
M. NAGABHUSHANAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
2011 INSC 922 February 2011Dismissed
The appellant, owner of two plots of land, challenged the acquisition of his land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, alleging that the land lay outside the Framework Agreement and that the acquisition was invalid because no award was made within two years as required by Section 11A of the Land …
BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERSversusGOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 31 January 2025Disposed off
The appellants purchased residential plots in Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997, which were later acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003. Although possession was taken in 2005, no compensation award was made until a Special Land Acquisit…