Sri Ramakrishnaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:30294 WP No. 12557 of 2026

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12557 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEELUR VILLAGE, MARALWADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-562121.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, SHANTHI GRUHA, 4^TH FLOOR, ARAMANE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30294 WP No. 12557 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB:KO.KA:LAQ:BHEM:1774P2:15863:2019-20 DATED 05/02/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Sy.No.110/1 of Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, Harohalli Taluk, Ramanagara District, which was proposed for acquisition under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the KIAD Act'), followed by a final notification dated 02.02.2010. The petitioner claims that a general award was passed on 11.10.2019 after nearly 09 years from the date of the final notification. He contends that he was not given an opportunity to enter into agree for a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The petitioner therefore has challenged the general award bearing No.PÉLJr©:J¯ï.J.PÀÆå:722/2019-20 dated 11.10.2019, which was approved by the respondent No.1, vide letter bearing No.

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30294 WP No. 12557 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

PÉLJr©/PÉÃA.PÀ/¨sÀÆ¸Áé/¨ÉA/1774-¦2/15863/2019-20 dated 05.02.2020. He

¶26

has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his case for consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has entered into consent awards with various other land losers and the opportunity for the petitioner to enter into a similar agreement is deprived by virtue of the general award passed. He therefore prays that the impugned general award be set aside and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to enter into a consent agreement with the respondent No.2 to pass an award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶28

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, several writ petitions are disposed of by this Court including the one in W.P.No.28477/2025.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does

¶30

not dispute that after nearly 9 years from the date of final notification, a general award was passed on 11.10.2019 and

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30294 WP No. 12557 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the petitioner was not given an opportunity to indicate his consent for an award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the general award bearing No.PÉLJr©:J¯ï.J.PÀÆå:722/2019-20 dated 11.10.2019, which was approved by the respondent No.1 vide letter bearing No.PÉLJr©/PÉÃA.PÀ/¨sÀÆ¸Áé/¨ÉA/1774-¦2/15863/2019-20 dated 05.02.2020

¶35

is quashed. The respondent No.2 shall now proceed to determine the compensation payable under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. This shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any amount deposited by the respondent No.3 before the Civil Court shall be refunded to the respondent No.3.

¶36

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶37

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Ramakrishnaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramakrishnaiah 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. Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dominic Savio D Souza Vs the Commissioner

C. v. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Naveen Vidya Mandira Trust (R) Vs the Secretary to Govt (M & Udd)

Channamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramganesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka