[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Puravankara Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
WA No. 657 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. PURAVANKARA LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
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.
2. M/S. KALPAK REALTY PVT. LTD.,
Digitally A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
signed by THE PROVISIONS OF THE
REKHA R
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
Location:
High Court HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
of
Karnataka NO. 10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BNGALURU -560 001,
REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER
PURAVANKARA LTD.,
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
WA No. 657 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE.
2. THE KARNTAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
NO. 14/3, RASTROTHANA,
BUILDING NEAR RESERVE BANK,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. 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.
...RESPONDENTS
(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)
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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
WA No. 657 of 2026
HC-KAR
DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF KIADB ACT, 1966
(ANNEXURE B).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
This Writ appeal is by the petitioner in
W.P.No.33550/2024 challenging the order dated
08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court.
2. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
HC-KAR
quashed the Final Notification issued under Section 28(4)
of the KIADB Act.
3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Writ Court.
4. Heard, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa., learned Senior
counsel appearing for the Advocate on record,
Sri.G.S.Aruna, learned HCGP appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned Senior
counsel for KIADB.
5. 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
HC-KAR
6. In response, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., learned
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
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.
7. In view of the submission of learned Senior
counsel Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty., nothing survives further
to consider the case of the appellants. In that view of the
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:17221-DB
HC-KAR
8. The parties are at liberty to file additional
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.
9. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
AKC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
