- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRINIVAS S/O CHANNAKESHAVADOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O NO.703, 3RD CROSS, MAHADESWARA LAYOUT, MYSORE-16. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPT. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3;) 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., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024 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. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the endorsement at Annexure-J. In terms of the said endorsement, the respondent - KIADB has submitted that 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. 3. Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar files a 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024 for an alternative site cannot be considered in the absence of any scheme. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Insofar as the request for alternative site as made out by the petitioner, the said request cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2642 WP No. 4393 of 2024 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. 7. Accordingly, petition is rejected. The rights of the petitioner to claim compensation is kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR