Centurions Housing and Constructions Pvt Ltd v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT APPEAL NO.1019 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1. CENTURIONS HOUSING AND

CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,

A COMPANY REGISTERED

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

33 AND 35 (PLOT NO.23 AND 24)

SOUTH BEACH AVENUE, MRC NAGAR,

RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM, CHENNAI,

TAMIL NADU - 600 028

REPRESENTED BY AGM LEGAL

SAHEB SADHIK HASAN.

2. SRI SAI SHELTERS

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

NO. 46, 7TH MAIN, YESHWANTHPUR

BANGALORE - 560 022

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

MADHUSUDHAN REDDY. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

VIKASA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU - 560 001

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE.

2. THE KARNATAKA 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, RASTROTHANA BUILDING,

NEAR RESERVE BANK,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. YASHAWANTH B. KATKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2026 & MODIFIED ON

20.02.2026 PASSED IN W.P.NO.5148/2025 INSOFAR AS IT REMITS THE MATTER TO THE SLAO AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 15.03.2024 BEARING NO.CI 59 S PQ 2024 AND THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF KIAD ACT, 1966 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5148/2025 (LA-KIADB) [impugned order]. The impugned order is a common order passed in W.P. No.6708/2025 (LA-KIADB) and other connected matters, including W.P. No.5148/2025 (LA-KIADB).

¶2The said writ petitions were filed impugning the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary notification dated

15.03.2024 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development, Act 1966 [KIAD Act] and the final notification dated 03.10.2024 issued under Section 28 (4) of the KIAD Act.

¶3The learned Single Judge declined to quash the preliminary notification, however, found that the final notification was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court was of the view that the objections filed by the writ petitioners to the acquisition had not been properly considered. Accordingly, the

learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer [SLAO] to continue the proceedings from the stage of Section 28 (3) of the KIAD Act.

¶4The appellants had challenged the acquisition, inter alia, on the ground that it was contrary to two circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka. However, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the said challenge.

¶5The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order was also challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P. No.33550/2024 (LA-KIADB), which formed part of the batch matters decided by the common impugned order. The appeal arising therefrom, being W.A. No.657/2026 (LA-KIADB) was disposed of by order dated 26.03.2026.

¶6A plain reading of the said order indicates that the only argument advanced on behalf of the appellants therein was that the SLAO would be bound by the findings in the impugned order in regard to two circulars. It was contended that the interpretation of the two circulars by the learned Single Judge was contrary to the

orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.461/2016 and 39/2024.

¶7In response to the said contention, the learned senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein submitted that the SLAO may be directed to consider the objections already filed, uninfluenced by the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

¶8The appeal was disposed of with the directions to the SLAO to consider the objections already filed, as well as any additional objections that may be filed, without being influenced by the interpretation of the said circulars by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The relevant extracts from paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the order passed in W.A. No.657/2026 are set out below:

"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.

¶6In 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.

¶7In 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.

¶8The 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."

¶9The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the present appeal may be disposed of in similar terms as contained in the order passed in W.A. No.657/2026 (LA-KIADB).

¶10In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by directing the SLAO to consider the objections already filed as well as any additional objections that may be filed by the appellants, in

accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order insofar as it interprets the two circulars in question.

¶11The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶12We request the SLAO to consider the objections and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from date.

¶13The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10