Sri B S Jayaram Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI B S JAYARAM S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH B.T., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILLANKOTE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562 111.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYARAJ D S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL, NELAMANGALA, OFFICE SITUATED AT NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1445 WP No. 27726 of 2024

¶19

1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD(KIADB) (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL, NELAMGALA, OFFICE SITUATED AT NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

SMR. B R SWATHA D/O SRI.B A RAJANNA, HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

SMT B R SMITHA D/O SRI. B A RAJANNA, HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN AGEDA BOUT 31 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. B R RUDRESH S/O SRI. B A RAJANNA, HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶24

SRI.B A RAJANNA S/O LATE APPAYANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT BILLANKOTE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL TALUK, KARNATAKA-562 111.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHWIN G. RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 04.07.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4-SLAO-2 OF KIADB IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1445 WP No. 27726 of 2024

¶30

NO.KIADB/LAQ/2499/2023-24 THEREBY AWARDING THE SUM OF RS. 2,37,52,861/- (RUPEES TWO CRORES THIRTY SEVEN LAKHS FIFTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE ONLY) VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner is before this Court with the following

¶35

reliefs:

¶36

'' (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the General Award dated 04.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4- SLAO-2 of KIADB in proceedings bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/2499/2023-24 thereby awarding the sum of Rs.2,37,52,861/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty One only) vide ANNEXURE - A;

¶37

(b) As a consequence to the above, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the subsequent correspondence made in proceedings bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/B.G.N/140/2024-25 dated 15.05.2024 depositing the sum of Rs.22,37,52,861/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty One only) before the Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala by the respondent No. 3-SLAO-1 of KIADB and endorsement dated 15.05.2024 issued in proceedings bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/B.G.N/140/2024-25 by the respondent No.3 - SLAO - 1 of KIADB vide ANNEXURES - A1 and A2 respectively.

¶38

(c) Simultaneously, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated in LAC No. 9/2024 pending consideration before the Hon'ble Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala vide ANNEXURE - A3; and

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:1445 WP No. 27726 of 2024

¶41

(d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent No. 4 - SLAO - 2 of KIDB to pass the Consent Award in terms Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966.''

¶42

Sri. Jayaraj D.S., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having argued the matter submits that the petitioner is before this Court primarily with two grievances. Firstly, that the General Award has been passed while there was a possibility for the respondent-Authority to pay the compensation under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, 1966. Secondly, while in the notification issued under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 there is specific reference with the regard to the existence of trees, borewell, pumpset, house and shed, and the same has not been taken into consideration while passing the general award.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter is now under reference in L.A.C.No. 09/2024 pending consideration before the Reference Court and that if the respondents are directed to consider the existence of the trees and other development effected to the land, the purpose of the petition would be served for the present. He also submits that the petitioner be reserved with the liberty to seek

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:1445 WP No. 27726 of 2024

¶46

such other remedy as may be available under law after resolution of the dispute amongst the members of the family.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB referring to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition No.6199/2023, dated 06.04.2023 submits that this Court on earlier occasion had taken on record that the parties therein had no objections in the respondent-SLAO framing the general award. That being the fact the question of petitioner having any grievance with regard to passing of the general award would not be arise.

¶48

In response thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the said petition was filed earlier by the respondent No.6 herein. However, he reiterates that the petitioner be reserved liberty to seek payment/determination of the compensation under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 in the event of resolution of the dispute between the parties.

¶49

Submissions taken on record.

¶50

Since admittedly general award has already been

¶51

passed and reference proceedings is pending consideration in L.A.C.No.09/2024, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:1445 WP No. 27726 of 2024

¶54

such application before reference Court with regard to consideration of his case for determination of the compensation in respect of trees and other development stated to have been effected, as pointed out at Annexure-J, this petition is disposed of.

¶55

Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to seek such other remedy as may be available in the event of resolution of the dispute amongst the family members.

¶56

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶57

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri B S Jayaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B S Jayaram 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

H.Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prema a R Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bangalore Kidney Foundation Vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Adaveeshaiah. H. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Radhika Advani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kusumalatha M J Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition