Sri Chandrashekar a H 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.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, CFC BUILDING MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:53078 WP No. 37678 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.HARISHA K S, AGA FOR R1: SRI H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

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/2038/2023-2024 DATED 06.06.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.101 MEASURING 4 ACRE 8 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶24

Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel accepts

¶25

notice for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the General Award dated 06.06.2023 passed by the 3^rd respondent in respect of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.101, measuring 4 acres 8 guntas, situated at Doddagollahalli, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53078 WP No. 37678 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Heard learned counsel Sri.Sharan N.Majage for

¶30

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

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation was earlier determined through a consent agreement entered into between the petitioner and the State under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short “the KIAD Act”). However, respondent No.3 subsequently, passed the impugned General Award on 06.06.2023, which according to the petitioner could not have been issued once a consent award was agreed upon. He further submits that as per the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure-D), the extent of developed land is increased to 10781 sq. ft. per acre, and therefore, being the lawful owner of the acquired land whose katha stands in his name, the petitioner is entitled to such allotment of

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53078 WP No. 37678 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

developed land in the industrial layout formed by respondent-KIADB.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-

¶36

KIADB does not dispute the existence of the Government Order dated 23.02.2021, which governs the allotment of developed land, in lieu of monetary compensation. However, he submits that the petitioner has not yet submitted any representation before the competent authority, seeking such allotment. It is further submitted that if the petitioner submits an appropriate representation, the same will be duly considered in accordance with law.

¶37

Submission is recorded.

¶38

Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned General Award dated 06.06.2023 assed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed .

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53078 WP No. 37678 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

(iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to KIADB, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondentKIADB shall consider the same in terms of Government Order dated 23.02.2021 as per Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders.

¶44

(iv) The said consideration by the KIADB shall be

¶45

within eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner.

¶46

(v) The respondent-KIADB is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited before the Competent Court.

¶47

(vi) In the event, if there is no consensus arrived for grant of developed land, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶50

HA

¶51

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21

Sri Chandrashekar a H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrashekar a H 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bhupendra Kumar Pokhama Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. Vs Special Deputy Commissioner - 3

Sri. Venkatachalapathi K M Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

Sri M N Veerendrapatil Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Aecs Layout Welfare Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. P. Kiran Vs the Commissioner of Excise