Allowed¶34

Smt Akkayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/26727/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-KAR; NC: 2025:KHC:39833; WP No. 26727 of 2025 (LA-KIADB); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; decided 09-10-2025 by K.S. Hemalekha, J. KIADB land acquisition compensation; notification dated 07.02.2022; representation dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-D) unattended over seven months; writ of mandamus/direction to consider representation and pass orders within two months; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; SLAO-2 KIADB; Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order. ¶34

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39833 WP No. 26727 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.26727 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI VISHWANATHA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶11

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

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, ‘SHANTHIGRAHA’, 4^TH FLOOR, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI C. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39833 WP No. 26727 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28-04-2025 ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her representation dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-D).

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶24

the petitioner is the grantee of the schedule property. Under the notification dated 07.02.2022, the land in question was acquired for the purposes of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). However, despite the acquisition, having been completed, the respondents have not paid the compensation amount. It is

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39833 WP No. 26727 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 requesting release of the compensation amount in her favour, but no action has been taken till date. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation, has remained unattended for over seven months without any response.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶29

submits that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration and the same would be disposed of, if a reasonable period of time is granted.

¶30

The submission is recorded.

¶31

In view of the above, this Court is of the

¶32

considered view that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if suitable directions are issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation. Accordingly, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39833 WP No. 26727 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ii. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-D) and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt

¶38

of the certified copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

_______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt Akkayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Akkayamma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Devarajamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmamma Vs State of Karnataka

P R Kumar @ D Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs the Deputy General Manager

Sri. a Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka