Disposed¶56

Sri.Renukamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025WP/15330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB General Award set aside; consent award versus General Award; denial of opportunity to accept higher consent-award compensation; Section 29(2) KIAD Act; SLAO-2 KIADB; Narayanaraopalya village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; W.P.No.22495/2023 followed; W.P.No.22091/2022 referred; disposed on same terms.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on the same terms as W.P.No.22495/2023 — the impugned General Award set aside qua the petitioner's land and respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation. ¶56

Sri.Renukamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23845 WP No. 15330 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.15330 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RENUKAMURTHY S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.153 MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 123.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. ASHWINI P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-01.

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23845 WP No. 15330 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, C.F.C. BUILDING MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN I FLOOR, N.R. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SESHU V., H.C.G.P FOR R-1; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB LAQ NO.2024/2022-23 DATED 9-3-2023 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.4/1 MEASURING 1-06 GUNTAS, OF NARAYANARAOPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel, Smt. Ashwini P., appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Seshu V., learned HCGP appearing for

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:23845 WP No. 15330 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

respondent No.1, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶32

following prayer:

¶33

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General award bearing No.KIADB: LAQ No.2024/2022-23 dated 09/03/2023 passed by 3^rd respondent in respect of land bearing Sy No.4/1 measuring 1-06 guntas, of Narayanaraopalya village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at ANNEXURE-A.

¶34

ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶35

iii) Issue any other orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstance attending" .

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22495/2023 disposed on 30.10.2023, wherein it has held as follows:

¶37

“This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶38

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/2022-23 dated 27.12.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in respect of land bearing Sy.no.40/7 measuring

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:23845 WP No. 15330 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

0-12.08 guntas, situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at Annexure-C;

¶43

(ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and etc.

¶44

Sri Omkara Murthy G & Sri M.S. Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was absolute owner of land bearing Sy.no.40/7, measuring of 12.08 guntas situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of which respondent - authorities had initiated acquisition proceedings for Multi Modal Logistics Park project.

¶45

It was submitted that petitioner had no objection for acquisition of land by respondents - KIADB, but without issuing notice and granting opportunity to petitioner to avail compensation under consent award General Award, was passed. Since compensation under consent award was higher than under General Award, denial was contrary to law.

¶46

It was submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.no.22091/2022 disposed of on 30.11.2022, holding such denial as unsustainable, quashed General Award and directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation for passing consent award. Hence sought for passing similar order. 5. Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for respondent no.1 and Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted that in view of earlier decisions, respondent no.3 would consider petitioner's representation if petitioner furnished relevant documents in support of claim over property and sought for disposal of writ petition.

¶47

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:23845 WP No. 15330 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

From above, it is seen that in W.P.no.22091/2022, contention of petitioner therein about failure to provide opportunity to accept compensation under consent award which was higher than under General award was upheld and this Court set aside General Award and directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation for passing consent award. Said decision would squarely apply in this case.

¶52

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of, impugned General Award no.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/2022-23 dated 27.12.2022 vide Annexure-C passed by respondent no.3, insofar as it relates to petitioner's land in Sy.no.40/7, measuring 12.08 guntas situated at Hadihosahlli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobali, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, is hereby set aside.

¶53

Respondent no.3 - SLAO shall consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight weeks."

¶54

4. In the light of the issue standing covered by

¶55

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra ,

¶56

the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶57

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶58

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri.Renukamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Renukamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jayashree Dead by Her Lrs Sri Acharya Aravind Vs Smt. Dhanalakshmi

Sri Chikkamuniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Savitha Rao S Vs Sri G v Raj @ G v Raju

Shashank C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suguna Jayaveera Vs Sri. Raju

Sri N Ramesh Vs Sri. Kunhi Moosa