Smt. Lakshmi v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2025WP/23551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:35984; WP No. 23551 of 2025 (LA-KIADB), High Court of Karnataka, decided 09.09.2025 by M. Nagaprasanna J. KIADB Metro land acquisition; General Award dated 03.01.2019 No. KIADB/Metro/BhuSwa/R1E-51/2018-19 (Annexure-H) sought to be quashed; consent award dated 23.11.2018 (Annexure-F) sought to be restored; compensation payable in terms of consent award; petition disposed on findings and directions in W.P.No.15026/2021 (18.08.2021); Section 29(2) KIAD Act 1966; Smt. Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka W.P.No.31702/2018 referred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed on the very same findings and directions as the co-ordinate bench order in W.P.No.15026/2021, whereby the General Award was quashed and the Special Land Acquisition Officer directed to consider the claim under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966. ¶¶67

Smt. Lakshmi Vs the Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the General Award dated 03.01.2019 made by respondent No.2 (KIADB) should be quashed, the consent award dated 23.11.2018 restored, and compensation paid to the petitioner in terms of the consent award for the land acquired by respondent No.2.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The issues raised in the writ petition stand covered on all fours by the co-ordinate bench order in W.P.No.15026/2021, and the writ petition is disposed on the very same findings and directions.

¶¶67

Ratio / Principle

By disposing on the very same findings and directions, this Court adopted the co-ordinate bench directions: quashing of the General Award and consideration of the petitioner's claim under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-KIADB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Lakshmi concerning land acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board through its Special Land Acquisition Officer (Metro). The Board had passed a consent award dated 23.11.2018 (No. KIADB/Metro/BhuSwa/R1E-51/2018-19, Annexure-F) and thereafter a General Award dated 03.01.2019 under the same number (Annexure-H). The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the General Award, restoration of the consent award, and mandamus for payment of compensation in terms of the consent award. Noting that coordinate benches had answered identical matters in favour of landowners - including W.P.No.15026/2021 (disposed 18.08.2021), which quashed the General Award and directed the SLAO to consider claims under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, itself reciting Smt. Rathnamma v. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.31702/2018) - the Court found the issues covered 'on all its fours' and disposed of the writ petition on the very same findings and directions. (M. Nagaprasanna, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23551 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMI

¶10

W/O. PALANI SWAMY,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 113, PROPERTY NO. 1,

BENNIGANAHALLI,

BANGALORE - 560036.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed (BY SRI. BALAJI A.M., ADVOCATE) by NAGAVENI Location: High AND: Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR,

¶21

MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (METRO)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;

¶24

SRI. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ANNX-H FROM THE FILE OF THE R2. ii) QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 03/01/2019 BEARING NO. KIADB/METRO/BHUSWA/R1E-51/2018-19 MADE BY THE R2 AS PER ANNX-H TO THIS WP AND RESTORE OF CONSENT AWARD DATED 23/11/2018 BEARING NO. KIADB/METRO/BHUSWA/R1E-51/2018-19 VIDE ANNX-F TO THIS WP. iii) DIRECT THE R2 T PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF CONSENT AWARD DATED 23/11/2018 BEARING NO. KIADB/METRO/BHUSWA/R1E51/2018-19 IN LEAVE OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-F TO THIS WP.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶32

following prayer:

¶33

"i. Call for the records relating to Annexure - H from the file of the 2^nd Respondent.

¶34

ii. Issue any appropriate order or direction or a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the General Award dated: 03.01.2019 bearing No.KIADB/Metro/BhuSwa/R1E-51/2018-19 made by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure H to this writ petition and restore of consent award dated:23.11.2018 bearing No. KIADB/Metro/BhuSwa/R1E-51/2018-19 vide Annexure F to this writ petition.

¶35

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of consent award dated:23.11.2018 bearing No.KIADB/Metro/BhuSwa/R1E-51/2018-19 in leave of land acquired by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure F to this writ petition.

¶36

iv. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶37

Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Balaji A.M.,

¶38

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.Rajkumar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Vasanth, learned counsel

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing to the petitioner submits

¶44

in plethora of identical matters, coordinate benches of this Court has considered the issue and answered in favour of the petitioner. One such order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.15026/2021 disposed on 18.08.2021, has allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law; the identical circumstance and afore-quoted judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court.

¶46

The co-ordinate bench of this Court in

¶47

W.P.No.15026/2021 disposed on 18.08.2021, has held as follows:

¶48

"Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel

¶49

Page no.04 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 09.10.2025

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Smt. Gowharunnissa, who is present before this Court, accepts notice for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶54

The petitioners' property bearing Sy.No.5/4, measuring 27 guntas, situated at Mindahallil Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, was notified for acquisition by State Government for the benefit of respondent No.2-KIADB. The grievance of the petitioner is that, while the General Award passed by the respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer-NIMZ was questioned by some of the landlords, this Court in the Smt. Rathnamma Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.31702/2018, by order dated 29.11.2018 has set aside the General Award and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, within a period of two months. Therefore, it is the prayer of the petitioner that similar orders may be passed in this writ petition to set aside the General Award and direct the respondent authorities to consider claim for compensation under Section 29(2) of the Act.

¶55

The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is not controverted at the hands of the respondents.

¶56

Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed .

¶59

(ii) The impugned General Award at Annexure - A, dated 17.07.2021 is hereby quashed.

¶60

(iii) Respondent No.3 (SLAO) is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966

¶61

Page no.05 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 09.10.2025

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35984 WP No. 23551 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

(iv) It is made clear that in the event, if any dispute arises with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the General Award at Annexure-A, which has been quashed by this Court would revive.

¶66

(v) Liberty is reserved to Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to General award."

¶67

Therefore, the issues as answered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court supra and in the light of the issues standing covered on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and the directions.

¶68

Ordered accordingly.

¶69

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶70

SJK

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 135

¶72

Page no.06 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 09.10.2025 Page Nos.7 to 9 are deleted

Smt. Lakshmi v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lakshmi v. the Government 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. Sombamma, Vs Sri M Papanna

Siddegowda Kumar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Deputy Commissioner of Vs Rajendran Sudagar

Kamala Vs Sri D Nagendra Kamath

Muzammimulla Vs Prestige Jindal City Apartment Owners Association

Sri. Sunil Kumar. H Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority