Dismissed¶49

Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026WP/4393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J, 19-01-2026), WP No. 4393 of 2024 (LA-KIADB): belated challenge under Articles 226/227 to KIAD Act S.28(4) acquisition notification dated 05.12.2006 (Sy.No.96) rejected solely on delay - award passed and compensation deposited in LAC.No.15/2014 over ten years earlier; merits not entered; demand for alternative site from KIADB untenable without an applicable scheme; compensation rights preserved. Keywords: KIADB, durasthi proceedings, Annexure-J endorsement, City Municipal Council Area of Hootagalli, delay/laches.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition rejected. The petitioner's right to claim compensation is kept open. ¶49

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition rejected. The petitioner's right to claim compensation is kept open.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the challenge to the acquisition notification dated 05.12.2006 (Annexure-D): the petition was filed belatedly, only in 2024, more than ten years after the award was passed and compensation deposited in reference proceedings LAC.No.15/2014. +2 more

¶40

Court's answer

On the ground of delay alone, and without entering into the merits, the challenge to the notification cannot be entertained; a petition filed more than ten years after the reference proceedings were initiated cannot be considered at this stage.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The request for an alternative site cannot be considered without there being any applicable scheme by the KIADB for consideration of allotment of alternative sites, as in the case of BDA and several authorities.

¶42

Key takeaways

While rejecting the petition, the Court expressly kept open the petitioner's right to claim compensation.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging (i) notification No.C1:317:SPQ:2006 dated 05.12.2006 (Annexure-D) issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 in respect of Sy.No.96, (ii) the Annexure-E notification specifying the area as 'City Municipal Council Area of Hootagalli', and (iii) the KIADB endorsement at Annexure-J. The award had already been passed and compensation deposited in reference proceedings LAC.No.15/2014; the petition itself was filed only in 2024. Held: on the ground of delay alone, without entering into the merits, the challenge to the notification cannot be entertained; a petition filed more than ten years after initiation of the reference proceedings cannot be considered at this stage. Further, the request for an alternative site cannot be considered absent any applicable KIADB scheme for allotment of alternative sites, as exists for BDA and several authorities. Petition rejected; the petitioner's right to claim compensation kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRINIVAS S/O CHANNAKESHAVADOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O NO.703, 3^RD CROSS, MAHADESWARA LAYOUT, MYSORE-16.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPT. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570016.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3;)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.C1:317:SPQ:2006, BENGALURU, DATED 5.12.2006, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SY.NO.96 AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the notification dated 05.12.2006 at Annexure-D. It is noticed that Annexure-D is the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act'). The petitioner has also challenged the notification at Annexure-E which is a notification issued by the Government declaring that the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

area of the land in question mentioned in schedule are specified to be areas 'City Municipal Council Area of Hootagalli'. Reference is made to the density of population and other factors.

¶30

The petitioner has also challenged the

¶31

endorsement at Annexure-J. In terms of the said endorsement, the respondent - KIADB has submitted that

¶32

the land has already been transferred pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered till durasthi proceedings are concluded. It is further submitted that the claim for compensation could be considered only after durasthi proceedings are completed.

¶33

Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar files a

¶34

memo and submits that award has been passed and compensation has been deposited in LAC.No.15/2014. Further it is submitted that the request of the petitioner

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

for an alternative site cannot be considered in the absence

¶39

of any scheme.

¶40

It is to be noticed that petition is filed belatedly, award has been passed and amount has already been deposited in the reference proceedings, and the said reference proceedings are registered as LAC.No.15/2014. The petition itself is filed only in the year 2024. Only on the ground of delay without entering into the merits, the question of challenge to the notification cannot be entertained.

¶41

Clearly, all admitted facts which are the matter of record would indicate that award has been passed and amount is deposited in LAC.No.15/2014. If that were to be so, the present petition is filed more than 10 years after the reference proceedings having been initiated, cannot be considered at this stage.

¶42