SRI. SHREENIVASA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:13673
Outcome
Disposed of
counsel for the KIADB, petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 s. 28(4)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Recording the undertaking of the learned counsel for the KIADB, petition is disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. Needless to state, petitioners to make out clarifications and furnish documents as may be required and the respondents are also at liberty to…
Judgment
1. SRI. SHREENIVASA S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13673 WP No. 7527 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H. L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 11.12.2025 AND 05.02.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar accepts notice for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to consider the representations at Annexures-E and F. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13673 WP No. 7527 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. The case made out by the petitioners is that the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 has been passed on 27.02.2023 and proceedings have progressed. However, petitioners have not been paid compensation though they are entitled for the same. Petitioners submit that representations have been made at Annexures-E and F.
Perused the representations at Annexures-E and F. Petitioners have sought for disbursal of compensation in terms of the said representations.
Sri. H. L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing the KIADB submits the said representations at Annexures-E and F, would be considered and appropriate orders passed in accordance with law and as per the legal entitlement of petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13673 WP No. 7527 of 2026 HC-KAR
Operative part
Recording the undertaking of the learned counsel for the KIADB, petition is disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. Needless to state, petitioners to make out clarifications and furnish documents as may be required and the respondents are also at liberty to correspond with the revenue department in the event any clarifications are required. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for the KIADB, petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — s. 28(4).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.