Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 06 - October 12, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341Nominal Index: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 334Veerabhadrapa & Others AND Channappa Gowda D & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 335Dr C Anusha AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 336A Alam Pasha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 337MALLAPPA CHAYAPPA AKSHARAD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 338G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339Pramodh K AND State of Karnataka and batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 340Muniyappa AND The Managing Director. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341Judgments/OrdersCourt Cannot Pass Orders Contrary To University's Norms: Karnataka High Court Declines Student's Plea Seeking 5th Attempt To Appear In ExamCase Title: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23759 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330The Karnataka High Court has held that no court can pass an order contrary to the regulations and norms prescribed by any University.Justice R Devdas held thus and dismissed a mercy petition filed by a medical student seeking a direction to the authorities to permit her to appear for the 5th time to clear the Biochemistry subject examination.The petitioner, Nisha R Kolyal, a student of Dr. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospita,l had contended that a 5th attempt may be permitted to her, although the regulation would prescribe only 4 attempts on the ground that there is only one paper remaining for her to clear.'Taking Advantage Of Her Poverty Is Ruthless': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Senior Citizen Accused Of Raping Minor GirlCase Title: Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331Denying bail to a 68-year-old man who along with other accused were booked for the gang rape of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court remarked that the act of committing sexual assault by taking advantage of the victim's poverty and her community is a "ruthless act".Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the appeal filed by Channappar @ Rajaiah who was charged Sections 376(3)(rape of girl under 16 years), 376(2)(n)(commits rape repeatedly on the same woman), 376(DA) (Punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age) read with section 149(common object) of IPC as well as provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ACT.Karnataka High Court Urges State To Frame Policy Regulating Sites In Converted Lands Outside Approved LayoutsCase Title: U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21648 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State Government to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate transactions regarding purchase of land/site on converted lands which are not part of any sanctioned layouts.A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “With increasing instances of purchasers acquiring sites in converted lands which are not part of sanctioned layouts, there is a pressing necessity for the State to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate such transactions. Unless and until the State formulates appropriate guidelines or a regularisation mechanism consistent with the object of Section 17(2B), (Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961). Courts cannot, in individual cases, bypass the statutory mandate and issue directions contrary to law.”Execution Proceedings Need Not Be Initiated For Collector To Transfer Award Amount To Person Who Loses Land: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106967 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333The Karnataka High Court has clarified that once an award under Section 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is passed, it is for the Collector to as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days to deposit the amount so awarded under a general award into the bank account of the land loser unless there is a dispute as regards the title to the property acquired.Justice Suraj Govindraj said, “Once the amount is received into the bank account of the land loser, land loser could always protest the quantum of compensation and if so protested, then the proceedings under sub-Section 1 of Section 64 could be undertaken. If no protest is made within a reasonable period of time, then it would be deemed that the land loser has received the amount as compensation into his bank account and has conceded to the quantum of compensation so awarded under...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 06 - October 12, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags