Sri Sampangi Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. SAMPANGI GOWDA S/O. SUBBARAYAPPA, AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, ALURDUDDAHALLI, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 110.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed BY ITS SECRETARY, by NAGAVENI DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Court of Karnataka

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:23381 WP No. 17203 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2414/2023-24 DATED 06.06.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.97 MEASURING 2 ACRES 20 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers:

¶27

"i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/2414/2023-24 dated: 06.06.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of land in Sy.No.97 measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas of land situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:23381 WP No. 17203 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

District, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, which is produced as ANNEXURE-E.

¶32

ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of developed land as per as per in the industrial layout formed by acquiring the land of the petitioner, on the lines of the GO dated 13.08.2007 bearing No. CI 417 SPQ 2007 marked as ANNEXEURE-F, the GO dated 13.05.2008 bearing No. CI 495 SPQ 2008 marked as Annexure-G and the latest GO dated 23.02.2021 bearing No. 103 SPQ (E) 2019 marked as ANNEXURE-H.

¶33

iii) Pass such other order, writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs."

¶34

Heard Shri Sharan N. Majage, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioner; Shri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of SRI

¶37

SALAGIRIGOWDA & Others Vs. THE STATE OF

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:23381 WP No. 17203 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

KARNATAKA & Others¹ , the co-ordinate bench has held as

¶42

follows:

¶43

"The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless of the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to nonextension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioner banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.3961139612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.

¶44

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by filing Statement of Objections contending that the petitioner's claim squarely falls in General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of the Act; he has already accordingly received entire compensation; therefore, he cannot be granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is although broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits the petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit in terms of Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, provided that in similar cases such a benefit has been accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell in the General Award category.

¶46

If such a representation is made, KIADB would consider the same in accordance with law and within a period of three months.

¶47

1 W.P.No.21379/2022 disposed on 31.01.2023

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23381 WP No. 17203 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Government Notification dated 23.02.2021 in lieu of compensation as per Annexure-H to the Petition.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping open all contentions.

¶52

No costs."

¶53

In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶54

Ordered accordingly.

¶55

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

JY

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 CT:BHK

Sri Sampangi Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sampangi Gowda 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

Sri Jayaramaiah Vs Smt. Gowramma

Sri Shankar R Vs Sri L Doreswamy

Sri. Ashish K Philip Kalluparambli Philip Vs M/S Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

Valliappa Textiles Limited Vs the Arbitrator and

Sri.K.M Muniyappa Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri. Devaraju S Vs the State of Karnataka