Smt Radha H v Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 23062 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT RADHA H V, W/O MUDDU KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KITTANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562130.

¶9

SMT ANJANA, D/O LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562132.

¶10

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

¶11

SMT DHANALAKSMI, W/O LATE SHANTARAJU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562132.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SATHEESH T V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ARAVINDA BHAVANA, OPP. INDIAN RESERVE BANK, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1, SRI C RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO LAND ACQUISITION RECORDS PERTAINING TO SY NO. 53/2, OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.2. AND GRANT IN THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.1.TO SET ASIDE THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/1395/2022-23 AND DATED 12.01.2023 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.53/2 MEASURING 3 ACRES 9 GUNTAS OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. AS PER ANNEXURE-F)2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-G) AND RELEASE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶31

Sri C.Ramakrishna, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

¶32

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶33

following reliefs:

¶34

“(i) To set-aside the General award bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/1395/2022-23 and dated 12.01.2023 passed by the second respondent as per ANNEXURE-F in respect of Land bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas of property situated at Obalapura village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore rural District. As per Annexure-F.

¶35

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 16.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-G) and release the compensation amount in favour of petitioners in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

(iii) Grant such order or direction as this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstance of the case."

¶40

Learned counsel on both sides submit that the

¶41

issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 03 acres 09 Guntas, situated at Oblapura Village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are willing to accept compensation by way of a consent award under Section

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act, 1966’ for short).

¶47

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if the petitioners are willing to accept the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, the same will be duly considered by the Authority in accordance with law.

¶48

The submission is placed on record.

¶49

Under identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri V. Rudranagaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and others¹ (V.Rudranagaraju) had quashed the general award and directed the respondent-Board to consider the representation of the land owner seeking determination of compensation under a consent award in terms of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act and has held as under:

¶50

1 W.P. No.22495/2023 D.D. 30.10.2023

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

“This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶55

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/202223 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;

¶56

(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.

¶57

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.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

3. 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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

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 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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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

¶70

(emphasis supplied)

¶71

Relying upon the decision of

¶72

V.Rudranagaraju, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Mr. Abdul Aleem and others Vs. The State of

¶76

Karnataka and others² (Abdul Aleem) has also passed a similar order, directing the respondent-KIADB to consider the request of the landowner for grant of compensation under a consent award in terms of Section 29 (2) of the

¶77

KIAD Act, 1966. Likewise in the case of Smt.Rukminamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others³ (Rukminamma) the Co-ordinate Bench has taken an identical view. The said position of law is not disputed by either of the parties.

¶78

In the present case, when the petitioners themselves express willingness to accept compensation under a consent award, there exists no impediment for the Authorities to consider such request. The purpose of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act is to facilitate voluntary and amicable settlement of compensation between the parties. Refusal to extend such benefit would defeat the very

¶79

2 W.P. No.23799/2025 D.D. 11.08.2025

¶80

3 W.P.No.3092/2025 D.D. 05.02.2025

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:41591 WP No. 23062 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

object of the Statute. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i) The Writ Petition is allowed . ii) The impugned General Award dated 12.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-F), insofar as the petitioners' schedule property is concerned, is hereby quashed .

¶87

iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners herein in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to state that, in the event of any dispute, the general award would stand restored.

¶88

iv) Respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit before the Competent Court, if any in accordance with law.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶91

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Radha H v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Radha H v. Vs 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 Chikka Ammaiah Vs Smt Marakka

Sri Munirajappa Vs State of Karnataka

D Govind Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Henry Dsilva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ningajamma Vs State of Karnataka