M/S Puravankara Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEGAL SHREYA VK JAIN.

¶12

M/S. KALPAK REALTY PVT. LTD.,

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BNGALURU -560 001, REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER PURAVANKARA LTD.,

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB WA No. 657 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE.

¶21

THE KARNTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), NO. 14/3, RASTROTHANA, BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SLAO) NO. 14/3, RASROTHANA, BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ADITYA SHUKAPURI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED JANUARY 08, 2026 PASSED IN WP No. 33550/2024 INSOFAR AS IT REMITS THE MATTER TO THE SLAO AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 15, 2024 AND THE

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB WA No. 657 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF KIADB ACT, 1966 (ANNEXURE B).

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶33

This Writ appeal is by the petitioner in

¶34

W.P.No.33550/2024 challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶35

The learned Single Judge under the impugned order partly allowed the Writ Petition, and remanded the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer ('SLAO' for short) to consider the objections under Section 28(3) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966 ('KIADB Act' for short) and pass orders thereon and

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB WA No. 657 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

quashed the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4)

¶40

of the KIADB Act.

¶41

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

¶42

Heard, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa., learned Senior counsel appearing for the Advocate on record,

¶43

Sri.G.S.Aruna, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned Senior counsel for KIADB.

¶44

The only argument advanced by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa is that the Writ Court while remanding the matter has interpreted two circulars on which the entire case of the petitioners rests and the same is against the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024. In the event the SLAO to consider the objections, the said interpretation by the Writ Court would be binding on the SLAO and prejudice the case of the petitioner.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB WA No. 657 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

In response, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned

¶48

Senior counsel submits that the Court may direct the SLAO to consider the objections already filed and the additional objections, if any to be filed, without being influenced by

¶49

the interpretation of the Circulars by the learned Single Judge and also in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Divison Judge of this Court in W.A.Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024.

¶50

In view of the submission of learned Senior

¶51

counsel Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., nothing survives further to consider the case of the appellants. In that view of the

¶52

matter, while upholding the judgment of the writ Court, we observe that the SLAO has to consider the objections already filed and the additional objections if any to be filed independently without being influenced by the interpretation of the writ Court on the circulars, in accordance with the law.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB WA No. 657 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The parties are at liberty to file additional

¶57

objections and cite the judgments in support of their contentions within 10 days from today and the SLAO is directed to consider and pass reasoned order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one month thereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the SLAO on 10.04.2026 .

¶58

With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of .

¶59

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶61

AKC

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

M/S Puravankara Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Puravankara Ltd. 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

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Land Tribunal

Smt. Sathyavathi Vs G. Srinivasa

Mrs Veela Laila Cutinha Vs the Commissioner

SBI Dfhi Limited Vs Sri. H Shiva Rao

Munishamanna B Vs State of Karnataka

The Secretary Vs Puttaswamy