Disposed¶70

Sri Chenappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/6776/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB compensation; Saguvali Chit dated 07.03.2019; grant confirmed 19.12.1992; endorsement dated 21.01.2025 held unsustainable; Section 28(4) KIAD Act; Apparel Park Industrial Area (Extension), Doddaballapura; Survey No.50, Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk; mandamus to pay compensation per Annexure-H within eight weeks; earlier WP.No.14948/2023 (LA-KIADB); Justice K.S. Hemalekha; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to pay the compensation amount determined at Annexure-H to the petitioners in respect of land measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Survey No.50 of Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶70

Sri Chenappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB, is liable to be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The grant in favour of the petitioners stood confirmed on 19.12.1992, and the Saguvali Chits issued on 07.03.2019 (Annexures-D1 to D4) were clearly for the purpose of enabling receipt of compensation; the Tahsildar's communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G) confirms the validity of the grant.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The impugned endorsement, which merely records that respondent No.2 awaits a response to a long-pending letter, is neither tenable nor defensible, especially when all requirements for passing the award stand satisfied; the endorsement is therefore unsustainable.

¶64

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the compensation amount determined at Annexure-H to the petitioners in respect of the schedule property within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-KIADB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: four petitioners, whose land grant was confirmed by Official Memorandum dated 19.12.1992 and who held Saguvali Chits issued on 07.03.2019 expressly for receiving KIADB compensation, sought quashing of the endorsement dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB, and a mandamus for payment of compensation for land measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Survey No.50 of Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, acquired under the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for the Apparel Park Industrial Area (Extension), Doddaballapura. The Court found the grant confirmed, the Saguvali Chits issued solely for receipt of compensation, and the Tahsildar's communication dated 25.02.2022 confirming the grant's validity; it held the impugned endorsement neither tenable nor defensible since all requirements for passing the award stood satisfied, respondent No.3 having confirmed availability of funds (over Rs.110 crores released, Rs.19,08,35,962/- unutilized). The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the compensation determined at Annexure-H within eight weeks.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6776 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHENAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O POOJAPPA

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH T AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE TIMMARAYAPPA

¶10

SRI. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIAMHAIAH

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. MANJUNATH A AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT ADINARAYANA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 561205

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHIKA GURUMATH AND NAGESH VINAY S., ADVOCATES)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (BMICP) 1ST FLOOR, MAHARISHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENAGLURU - 560001

¶21

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H N VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING/ SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEARING NO. BEN/KIADB/VIBHUSWAA-2/2079/2024-25 DATED 21.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

¶31

to set aside the endorsement dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB, wherein respondent No.2 observed that he is awaiting response to his letter addressed on 23.02.2023 to respondent No.3 and further that the petitioners' request would be considered in accordance with law upon receipt of a communication from respondent No.3. Further, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pass an award in favour of the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of land measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Survey No.50 of Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District (for short 'the schedule property’) vide the Final Notification issued

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act').

¶36

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶37

The petitioners contend that they have been in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the schedule property for more than 40 years. Petitioner No.1's application for regularization was allowed by the Land Grant Committee and the Tahsildar granted land vide Official Memorandum dated 19.12.1992 (Annexure-B). In the year 2013, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'the KIADB') initiated acquisition of several lands in Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, including the petitioners' land for the formation of Apparel Park Industrial Area (Extension), Doddaballapura. As on the date of Notification, the petitioners' names were not reflected in the revenue records. Repeated requests were made to the Tahsildar to issue the Saguvali Chit.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

On 07.03.2019, the Tahsildar issued the Saguvali

¶41

Chit to all the petitioners specifically indicating that the said Saguvali Chit was issued for the limited purpose of receiving the compensation from the KIADB. The petitioners thereafter submitted a representation seeking compensation. By communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G), the Tahsildar reaffirmed the validity of the original grant. A scrutiny list was prepared and proposed award was determined by respondent No.2.

¶42

Respondent No.2 sought sanction of Rs.2,14,62,500/- from respondent No.3 to enable passing the award. As their representation was not considered, the petitioners approached this Court in WP.No.14948/2023 (LA-KIADB), wherein this Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioners' representations within 8 weeks. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued communication dated 24.01.2024, stating that more than Rs.110 crores had already been released to respondent No.2 for

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

disbursement of awards out of which Rs.19,08,35,962/- is remained unutilized.

¶47

Despite this, the petitioners' further

¶48

representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-L) was met with the impugned endorsement dated 21.01.2025, wherein respondent No.2 again stated that he was awaiting a response from respondent No.3 to the letter of 23.02.2023.

¶49

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶50

the petitioners, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.N.Vasudevan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶51

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the endorsement is wholly unjustified in light of repeated acknowledgement by both respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioners are entitled to compensation. The Saguvali Chit issued on 07.03.2019 expressly state that they were issued for the purpose of receiving

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

compensation. The communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G) by the Tahsildar unequivocally confirms the validity of the grant and respondent No.3 has already released substantial compensation funds to respondent No.2. Thus the impugned endorsement amounts to a refusal to act, contrary to law.

¶55

Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No.2 is awaiting further clearance from respondent No.3 and appropriate action will be taken thereafter.

¶56

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶57

Undisputedly, the grant in favour of the petitioners was confirmed on 19.12.1992. The Saguvali Chits were issued on 07.03.2019 (Annexures-D1 to D4), clearly stating that they were issued for the purpose of enabling receipt of compensation. The Tahsildar's communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G) confirms

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the validity of the grant in unequivocal terms, the relevant portion which reads thus:

¶61

" ಅದರಂ�ೆ ಕಸ�ಾ�ೋಬ�ಆ��ಾ�ಾಯಣ�ೊಸಹ��ಾಮ�ದ ಸ . ನಂ 50 ರ 2-21 ಎ / ಗುಜ ೕ!ನ�ಾಬು" ಮೂಲಕಡತವನು' ಸಂ ; ಎ(

¶62

ಎ)* / ಆ+ . ಯು . , /145/92-93 ರಂ�ೆ ಈ .ೕಲ/ಂಡ ಮಂಜೂರು0ಾರರುಗ��ೆ ಜ ೕನುಮಂಜೂ�ಾ1 ಸದ2 ಮಂಜೂ�ಾ3ಯು

¶63

�ೈಜ�ೆ5ಂದಕಂಡುಬಂ�ರುತ"0ೆ."

¶64

The petitioners have been approaching respondent No.2 repeatedly for disbursement of compensation. This Court in WP.No.14948/2023, issued a clear direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider their claim within eight weeks. Respondent No.3 has confirmed availability of funds. The impugned endorsement, which merely states that respondent No.2 awaits a response to a long pending letter, is neither tenable or defensible, especially when all requirements for passing the award stand satisfied.

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46024 WP No. 6776 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

In these circumstances, the impugned

¶68

endorsement is unsustainable and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶71

ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the compensation amount determined at Annexure-H to the petitioners in respect of land measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Survey No.50 of Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶74

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement bearing No. BEN/KIADB/VIBHUSWAA-2/2079/2024-25 dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB, recording that he was awaiting a response to his letter dated 23.02.2023 addressed to respondent No.3 and that the petitioners' request would be considered upon receipt of a communication from respondent No.3.¶24
Respondent No.2 - Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB · 21.01.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1's regularization application allowed by the Land Grant Committee; Tahsildar granted land vide Official Memorandum dated 19.12.1992 (Annexure-B).¶37
Prior proceeding
In 2013, KIADB initiated acquisition of several lands in Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, including the petitioners' land, for the Apparel Park Industrial Area (Extension), Doddaballapura.¶37
Prior proceeding
Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 acquiring the schedule property.¶35
Prior proceeding
Tahsildar issued Saguvali Chits to all the petitioners on 07.03.2019 (Annexures-D1 to D4), expressly for the limited purpose of receiving compensation from KIADB.¶57
Prior proceeding
Tahsildar's communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G) reaffirmed the validity of the original grant; a scrutiny list was prepared and a proposed award determined by respondent No.2.¶41
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 sought sanction of Rs.2,14,62,500/- from respondent No.3 to enable passing the award.¶42
Prior proceeding
Petitioners approached this Court in WP.No.14948/2023 (LA-KIADB); the Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioners' representations within 8 weeks.¶42
Prior proceeding
By communication dated 24.01.2024, respondent No.3 stated that more than Rs.110 crores had already been released to respondent No.2 for disbursement of awards.¶42
Prior proceeding
Out of the funds released, Rs.19,08,35,962/- remained unutilized with respondent No.2.¶46
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' further representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-L) was met with the impugned endorsement dated 21.01.2025.¶48

Sri Chenappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chenappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri M K Balakrishnan

Sri N C Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri.M. Narasimha Swamy Vs the State Ofkarnataka

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt.S.Sunand @ Sunandamma

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

The Executive Engineer Vs Thippeswamy S @ Thippeswamy