Dismissed¶64

Smt. Suma. H. M. v. the Special Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – KIADB

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025WP/13963/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 13963 of 2025 (LA-KIADB), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 23-10-2025 by Justice K.S. Hemalekha. Petitioners (legal heirs of deceased land loser, Koteganguru, Shivamogga) sought mandamus for 100% solatium under the 'new Act' for KIADB-acquired land and consideration of their 3.12.2024 representation. Court held claim for additional solatium not maintainable / not contemplated under Section 29(2) KIAD Act, following Thirthappa (W.P. 297/2025 c/w 506/2025), Desigowda (ILR 1995 Kar 2250) and Sangappa Dyavappa (AIR 2005 SC 2204); writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the decisions referred to (Thirthappa; Desigowda; Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar); therefore no separate adjudication is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed. ¶62

Smt. Suma. H. M. Vs the Special Land Acquisition — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 13963 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUMA. H. M. W/O LATE H.M. SHIVAMURTY AGE 65 YEARS RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DIST.

¶9

NIRANJAN

¶10

S/O LATE H.M SHIVAMURTY AGE 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DIST.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. K.I.A.D.B, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE 100 PERCENT SOLATIUM TO THE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PETITIONERS FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PROVIDE UNDER THE NEW ACT AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner in this petition is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

"1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to pay 100% solatium to the petitioners for the land acquired by the respondent provided under the new Act.

¶27

2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 3.12.2024 issued by the petitioners vide Annexure-B. 3. Issue such other order or direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with cost, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶28

Heard Sri Purushothama P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Chandrashekar P.V.,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the

¶32

records.

¶33

Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Thirthappa vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer¹ (Thirthappa) . In the said decision, Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

¶34

5. In Desigowda and Others Etc. vs. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board reported in ILR 1995 KAR 2250 it was held that Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act provides that consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the Court regards it as immoral, or oppose to public policy. This Court has held that when the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondentBoard, voluntarily agreeing to receive a particular

¶35

1 W.P. No.297/2025 c/w W.P. No.506/2025 D.D. 22.04.2025

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

sum of compensation, such agreement is not entered by only one landholder, but by a large number of landholders. Such agreements are contemplated and in fact specifically provided for as the main mode of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act. The petitioners did not challenge the agreement entered by them under Section 29(2) of the Act on the ground that they have obtained by misrepresentation or on the ground that they were opposed to public policy and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to now contend that the agreement is void.

¶40

6. That was the case where a Civil Court, in a reference, had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,500/- per acre for similar lands. Therefore, it was held that the petitioners now cannot contend that agreement voluntarily entered by the petitioners in the year 1985 was unreasonable and unfair. It was also held that it does not shock the conscience of the Court to hold that they are opposed to public policy.

¶41

7. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 29(2) which reads as follows:

¶42

"Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.",

¶46

this Court is of the considered opinion that an additional solatium is not contemplated in Section 29(2) of the Act. The State Government is required to pay the compensation as agreed in the agreement. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed ."

¶48

The Court, in Thirthappa’s case, relied upon

¶49

the earlier decision in Desigowda and Others Etc. Vs. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board² (Desigowda) wherein it was held that agreements voluntarily entered into under Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) are valid and binding unless vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud or contravention of public policy. It was further observed that once the land loser voluntarily

¶50

2 ILR 1995 KAR 2250

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

accepts the compensation as per the agreement, he is estopped from claiming any additional compensation or solatium. In Thirthappa’s case, while considering the similar issue, has held that where the compensation amount has been determined by mutual agreement under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, the payment of additional solatium is not contemplated.

¶54

The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others³ (Sangappa Dyavappa) has held that a right of a landholder to obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regard the value of the lands acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set aside in an appropriate proceeding by a

¶55

3 AIR 2005 SC 2204

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41767 WP No. 13963 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

court of law having jurisdiction in relation thereto, the

¶60

same remain binding.

¶61

In view of the above settled possession, and

¶62

the issue raised herein is covered by the decisions referred to supra , no separate adjudication is warranted in this writ petition. Hence, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64