Disposed¶59

Sri.Rajanna H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2025WP/22972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB land acquisition; General Award No.KIADB/LAQ/2024-25 dated 26.08.2024 by SLAO-2 KIADB challenged for Sy.No.67/3, 0-07½ guntas, Obalapura Village, Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; writ of certiorari and mandamus to consider petitioner under Section 29(2) KIAD Act / KIADB Act; consent award versus General Award; disposed on same terms as W.P.No.22495/2023 (30.10.2023), which followed W.P.no.22091/2022 (30.11.2022); Multi Modal Logistics Park project referred to in the quoted judgment; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on the same terms as the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in W.P.No.22495/2023 (disposed 30.10.2023). ¶59

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.22972 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.RAJANNA H, S/O LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMGOUNDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132.

¶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, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/ 2024-25 DATED 26.08.2024 PASSED BY R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.67/3 MEASURING 0-07½ GUNTAS OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGAOUNDLU HOBLI, NELAMAGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. DIRECTION OR WITH IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER SECTION 29(2) OF THE KIADB ACT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel, Smt. Ashwini P., appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No. /2024-25 dated 26/08/2024 passed by 3^rd respondent in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/3 measuring 0-07½ guntas, of Obalapura Village, Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

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.

¶34

iii) Issue any other orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances attending.”

¶35

The 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:

¶36

“This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

(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 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;

¶41

(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.

¶42

2. 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.

¶43

3. It was submitted that petitioner had no objection for acquisition of land by respondents - KIADB, but without issuing notice and granting

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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.

¶48

4. 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.

¶49

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.

¶50

6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶51

7. 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

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:31010 WP No. 22972 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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.

¶56

8. 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.

¶57

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

¶58

In the light of the issue standing covered by

¶59

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra , the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶60

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37

Sri.Rajanna H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rajanna H 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

M S Raghu Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri Ashok Kheny Vs Abraham T J

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Vs the Commercial Bank Retired Employees

Smt.Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project (Kship-Ii) Vs M/S Kmc Vdb(Jv)

Smt. Hombalamma Vs Smt. Siddamma