Sri. Jagadish H. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

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-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1^ST FLOOR,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.BENGALURU/VIBHUSWAAA-2/2013-14 DATED 30.12.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.10/2 MEASURING 1 ACRES 38 ½ GUNTAS, SITUATED AT KOLIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AS PER ANNEXURE-C; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF DEVELOPED LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT FORMED BY ACQUIRING THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER, ON THE LINES OF THE GO DATED 23.02.2021 BEARING NO.103 SPQ (E) 2019 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D.

¶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

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶30

Learned counsel Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar

¶31

accepts notice for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri.Sharan N.Majage for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Harisha A.S. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the material on record.

¶33

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash the general award dated 30.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB in respect of petitioner's land in Survey No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 38 ½ guntas situated at Kolipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and further to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation in accordance with the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Government Order dated 23.02.2021 bearing No.103 SPQ

¶37

(E) 2019 at Annexure D.

¶38

Facts of the case:

¶39

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 38 ½ guntas situated at Kolipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) for industrial development purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation was determined under a consent agreement entered into between the State and the petitioner in terms

¶40

of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short). However, despite the existence of such an agreement, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass a general award dated 30.12.2013, contrary to law and without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner further relies on the Government Order dated 23.02.2021, which enhances the entitlement

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of land losers to 10,781 square feet of developed land per acre in lieu of compensation, and accordingly claims that he is entitled to such allotment as per the said circular.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once compensation has been determined by consent under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, the respondents could not have unilaterally altered the same by passing a general award. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been allotted any developed land or paid the corresponding monetary compensation. Hence, he seeks quashing of the general award and a direction to KIADB to allot developed land as per the Government order dated 23.02.2021.

¶46

Sri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶47

KIADB, while not disputing the applicability of Government order dated 23.02.2021, submits that no representation has yet been filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of developed land. It is contended that the authority would

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

consider such representation if filed and decide the same

¶52

in accordance with law.

¶53

The said submission is recorded.

¶54

This Court has carefully considered the

¶55

submissions made and perused the material on record.

¶56

It is not in dispute that the Government order dated 23.02.2021 provides for allotment of developed land to landowners whose properties have been acquired by KIADB, in lieu of monetary compensation. The general award dated 30.12.2013, impugned herein, appears to have been passed without reference to the concerned proceedings under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act. Such an award insofar as it relates to the petitioner is unsustainable.

¶57

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB that the petitioner's representation, if made, shall be duly considered, this

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:43776 WP No. 32507 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Court finds it appropriate to issue suitable directions in

¶62

that regard. Accordingly, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶65

ii. The general award dated 30.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, KIADB insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed .

¶66

iii. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondent-KIADB within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order seeking allotment of developed land, in lieu of compensation in terms of the Government order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure-D).

¶67

iv. Upon receipt of such representation, the KIADB shall consider and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.

¶68