Sri Naveen Kumar M Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.27026 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR .M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT HADI HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TYAMOGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562132 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER –I, KIADB (BMICP), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, NO.14/3, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 12-01-2023 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.KIADB/LAQ/1385/2022-23 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY NO.37/4 MEASURING 05.04 GUNTAS GUNTAS OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND TO PASS THE CONSENT AWARD.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶27

notice for respondent No.1.

¶28

Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel is

¶29

directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶31

following reliefs:

¶32

“i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or direction quashing the General Award dated 12-01-

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

2023 in Proceedings No.KIADB/LAQ/1385/2022-23 passed by the 3^rd Respondent produced at Annexure-A in respect of the land in Sy No.37/4 measuring 05.04 Guntas Guntas of Obalapura Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangaluru Rural District and to pass the Consent Award;

¶36

ii) Grant such other and further reliefs deems fit under the circumstances of the case including the cost, in the interests of justice and equity."

¶37

Learned counsel on both sides submit that the

¶38

issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.37/4 measuring 5.04 guntas, situated at Obalapura Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli and Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB)

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further

¶44

submits that the petitioners are willing to accept compensation by way of a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act, 1966’ for short).

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-

¶46

KIADB 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.

¶47

The submission is placed on record.

¶48

Under identical circumstances, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri V. Rudranagaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and others¹

¶49

(V.Rudranagaraju) had quashed the general award and

¶50

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

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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, 1966 and has held as under:

¶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,

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of which respondent - authorities had initiated acquisition proceedings for Multi Modal Logistics Park project.

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

documents in support of claim over property and sought for disposal of writ petition.

¶69

6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶70

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.

¶71

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.

¶72

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

¶73

(emphasis supplied)

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Relying upon the decision of

¶77

V.Rudranagaraju, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mr. Abdul Aleem and others Vs. The State of 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 KIAD Act, 1966. Likewise in the case of

¶78

Smt.Rukminamma Vs. State of Karnataka and

¶79

Others³ (Rukminamma) the Co-Ordinate Bench has taken an identical view. The said position of law is not disputed by either of the parties.

¶80

In the present case, when the petitioner himself expresses 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

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

amicable settlement of compensation between the parties.

¶86

Refusal to extend such benefit would defeat the very object of the statute. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶89

ii) The impugned General Award dated 12.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-A), insofar as the petitioner’s schedule property is concerned, is hereby

¶90

quashed .

¶91

iii) Respondent No.3 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.

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:44051 WP No. 27026 of 2025

¶93