Smt Radha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 37219 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RADHA M R W/O MURTHY G, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 18, LAKSHMIRANGANATH NILAYA, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, AGAKUPPE ROAD, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ASHWINI P, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, C.F.C BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, I FLOOR, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA OR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB.LAQ.NO.3208/2023-24 DTD. 24.08.2023 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO. 70 MEASURING 0-30 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶26

Sri. P V Chandrashekar, learned counsel for

¶27

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

i. "Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No.3208/2023-24 dated 24.08.2023 passed by 3^rd respondent in respect of land bearing Sy.No.70 measuring 0-30 guntas, situtated at Gottigere Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at Annexure-A,

¶32

ii. Issue any suitable order, direction to the respondents to allot developed site lieu compensation as per the Government order No. CI 103 SPQ (E) 2019 dated 23.02.2021 at Annexure-B.

¶33

iii. Issue any other orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances attending."

¶34

The State of Karnataka-respondent No.1

¶35

initiated acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in respect of several lands situated at Gottigere Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, Benglauru for the formation of an industrial area by respondent No.2-KIADB and issued notification under Section 1 (3) and 3 (1) of KIAD Act, declaring the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

lands as an industrial area. A Preliminary Notification on 05.11.2020 was issued under Section 28 (1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands followed by a Final Notification under Section 28 (4) of the Act on 19.05.2021. The award was passed on 24.08.2023.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition regarding prayer (i) to quash the impugned General Award is squarely covered by the several decisions of this Court and one such order is passed in RUKMINAMMA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶40

AND OTHERS¹ . Undisputedly, the petitioner’s land to the extent of 0.30 guntas has been acquired under the notification, and the acquisition proceedings have attained finality.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to accept the developed land by

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

way of a consent award, in terms of the Government

¶46

Order dated 23.02.2021.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2

¶48

and 3 – KIADB submits that if the petitioner is willing to accept the compensation in accordance with the said Government Order dated 23.02.2021, the same will be considered by the authority in accordance with law.

¶49

The submission is placed on record.

¶50

Accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶53

(ii) The impugned General Award dated 24.08.2023 passed by the third respondent at Annexure-A in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned, is hereby

¶54

quashed .

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52748 WP No. 37219 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(iii) The third respondent is directed to consider

¶58

the petitioner’s grievance in terms of the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶59

(iv) It is needles to state that in the event of any dispute, the General Award stand restored.

¶60

Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the

¶61

amount deposited before this Court in respect of the schedule land in question.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

__________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶64

SSD

Smt Radha M R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Radha M R 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

Sri. Shashi Shekar Naik Vs Bangalore Development Authority

N Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadappa Vs the State of Karnataka

S Kumaresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Dr C K Venkateshappa Vs the Commissioner