The Karnataka Industrial Area v. Muniramaiah

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WA/857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB land acquisition; delay in passing award; Preliminary Notification 06.07.2010; Final Notification 09.09.2011; award passed 2020; 713 acres 19 guntas; Kolar; exemplary cost Rs.2,50,000 reduced to Rs.1,25,000 deposit; penalty Rs.2,500 per day vacated; withdrawal from Registry with interest; W.P.No.57816/2013 (LA-KIADB); WA No. 857 of 2023; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; LRs of Muniramaiah; Sharadhamma; Muniraju; Govindaraju; State of Karnataka Department of Commerce and Industries; Karnataka HC Division Bench 2026.

What did the court decide?

Findings of the learned Single Judge upheld; cost limited to Rs.1,25,000/- (already in deposit), withdrawable from the Registry with interest, if any; further penalty of Rs.2,500/- per day vacated; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶79

The Karnataka Industrial Area Vs Muniramaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of the learned Single Judge — that the acquisition could not be upheld, having specifically considered the inordinate delay in passing of the award — should be upheld in this writ appeal. +2 more

¶¶68

Court's answer

The appeal is disposed of by upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge.

¶¶79

Ratio / Principle

The costs ordered by the learned Single Judge are limited to Rs.1,25,000/-, the amount already deposited pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 28.07.2023.

¶¶79

Key takeaways

The appellants may withdraw the said amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the Registry with interest, if any, as applicable.ratio¶¶79
The further penalty of Rs.2,500/- per day imposed by the learned Single Judge is vacated in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the submissions made on either side.ratio¶¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LA-KIADB) No. 857 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ., judgment per Anu Sivaraman J), decided 11.03.2026: appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 09.03.2023 in W.P.No.57816/2013 disposed of by upholding the Single Judge's findings that the KIADB acquisition (Preliminary Notification 06.07.2010; Final Notification 09.09.2011; award passed only in 2020 without explanation for the delay) could not be upheld owing to the inordinate delay in passing the award. However, the exemplary cost of Rs.2,50,000/- imposed below was limited to the Rs.1,25,000/- already in deposit pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 28.07.2023, withdrawable by the appellants from the Registry with interest, if any, and the further penalty of Rs.2,500/- per day was vacated. Filed under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 857 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶11

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶12

EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN

¶13

RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶16

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶17

NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDS BHAVAN

¶18

NRUPATHUGNA ROAD

¶19

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶20

BANGALORE-01

¶21

REPRESETNED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

¶22

OFFICER

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MUNIRAMAIAH

S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶29

1. SHARADHAMMA

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

D/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS VERNAGAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶34

2. MUNIRAJU

¶35

S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS VERNAGAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶36

3. GOVINDARAJU

¶37

S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS VERNAGAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶39

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R4; SRI. S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)

¶40

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.57816/2013 ALLOWING THE PETITIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY IMPOSING COST OF 2,50,000/- PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

¶45

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶47

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶50

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2023, passed in W.P.No.57816/2013 (LA-KIADB).

¶51

The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions advanced on either side found that the Preliminary Notification had been issued on 06.07.2010 followed by the Final Notification on 09.09.2011. It was found that the award was passed only in the year 2020 and there was no explanation for the delay.

¶52

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the acquisition was in respect of a large extent of 713 acres and 19 guntas of property, which was the reason for the delay in passing the award.

¶53

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The learned Single Judge went on to consider

¶56

the effect of non-passing of the award for an inordinately long time and found that the action of the State and its Authorities was unfair. The learned Single Judge on these findings, quashed the impugned notification and imposed cost of Rs.2,50,000/- on the appellants herein to be paid within a period of six weeks failing which, an amount of Rs.2,500/- per day as penalty was ordered to be paid for the delay.

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even in case there was delay in passing of the award, the imposition of the exemplary cost was not justified in the facts of the case since the respondents had not lost possession of the Suit Property and they are still enjoying the Suit Property.

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that no notice had actually been issued to the respondents

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

and that there were fraudulent affixing of signatures by

¶63

the Officers of the KIADB.

¶64

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the

¶65

other hand, contends that it was considering the fact that the respondents were agriculturists and the contention of the respondents that there was no proper award in the eye

¶66

of law that the orders were passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶67

We have considered the contentions advanced

¶68

on either side. The learned Single Judge, in coming to the conclusion that the acquisition cannot be upheld, had specifically considered the aspect of delay in passing of the award. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for

¶69

the respondents do not find a place in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was for the reason that the award

¶70

had been delayed without any due reason being shown that the exemplary costs were imposed on the appellants.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

The learned counsel for the appellants submits

¶75

that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is already in deposit

¶76

pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 28.07.2023.

¶77

Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the costs ordered by the learned Single Judge can be limited to an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-

¶78

, which is already in deposit by virtue of the Order of this Court dated 28.07.2023.

¶79

In the above view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of by upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge. However, the imposition of costs is limited to the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- which is deposited by the appellants. The said amount can be withdrawn by the appellants from the Registry with interest, if any, as applicable. The further penalty of Rs.2,500/- per day imposed by the learned Single Judge is vacated in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the submissions made on either side.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:14562-DB WA No. 857 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶84

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶85

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶86