Sri. a Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 27800 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A SOMASHEKAR S/O APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT 1/2 K CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD GREEN WOODS LAYOUT VARANASI (JINIKATHIMMANAHALLI) KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE 560036.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

Digitally signed by BY ITS SECRETARY MAHALAKSHMI B M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES Location: HIGH COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001.

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶16

NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB: LAQ:1928:2024-25 DATED: 29.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.62/9 (OLD SY.NO.62/3) MEASURING 07.08 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MALLIYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AS PER ANNX-E AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶29

for respondent No.1.

¶30

Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

“i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No. KIADB:LAQ:1928:2024-25 dated: 29.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of land in Sy.No.62/9 (Old Sy.No.62/3) measuring 07.08 Guntas, situated at Malliyappanahalli Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, as per ANNEXURE-E.

¶35

ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioners as per section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶36

iii) Pass such other order, writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs."

¶37

Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.62/9 (Old Sy.No.62/3) measuring 07.08 Guntas, situated at Malliyappanahalli Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Taluk, Kolar District. The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is 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).

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB submits that if the petitioner is 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.

¶44

The submission is placed on record.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Under identical circumstances, a Co-Ordinate

¶48

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:

¶49

“This writ petition is filed seeking for following

¶50

reliefs:

¶51

(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;

¶52

(ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the case of

¶53

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

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the petitioner as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and etc.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

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

¶65

6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶66

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.

¶67

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

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Village, Thyamagondlu Hobali, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, is hereby set aside.

¶71

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

¶72

(emphasis supplied)

¶73

Relying upon the decision of

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

KIAD Act, 1966. Likewise in the case of Smt.Rukminamma Vs. State of Karnataka and

¶77

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

¶78

by either of the parties.

¶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

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

In the present case, when the petitioner himself

¶84

expresses willingness to accept compensation under a

¶85

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

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶88

ii) The impugned General Award dated 29.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-E), insofar as the petitioner’s schedule property is concerned, is hereby quashed .

¶89

iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner herein in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, and pass

¶90

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39837 WP No. 27800 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

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.

¶93

iv) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit before the Competent

¶94

Court, if any in accordance with law.

¶95

Sd/-

¶96

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶97

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17

Sri. a Somashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a Somashekar 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

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

Smt Akkayamma Vs the State of Karnataka