High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Writ Petition No.13 of 2012 (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, disposed of on 18.02.2026 (oral order per D K Singh, J.; bench comprising D K Singh and S Rachaiaha, JJ.). Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd and Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd challenged the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission's order dated 04.07.2011 in H.R.C. No.2145/11 c/w 1945/11, 2405/11 and 2452/11, which directed (i) alternative sites and compensation of Rs.3 lakh each for residents of Bagegowda Layout, (ii) identification of and disciplinary action against police officers responsible for the eviction action, and (iii) KIADB-led rehabilitation under the R&R package with the entire expenditure borne by NICE and compensation at prevailing market rates for 35 guntas of land, along with KIADB's letter dated 23.09.2011. HELD: (1) No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the recommendations were made, contrary to the mandate of Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which requires hearing to persons prejudicially affected by any direction or order of the Commission; (2) once compensation stands determined under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, an aggrieved landloser's remedy is an appeal before the competent forum, the complete code for determination and enhancement of compensation being contained in that Act; the State Human Rights Commission therefore has no jurisdiction to enhance compensation, and the directions at sub-paras (i) and (iii) of para 4 of the impugned order fall outside the purview of Section 18 of the 1993 Act; (3) however, as the State Government has acted upon sub-para (iii) — the Government order dated 23.04.2001 sanctioned the revised R&R package of Rs.19,11,83,000/- to be borne entirely by NICEL and implemented by KIADB, and the KIADB in its 309th meeting dated 27.08.2011 resolved to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to each affected family at NICE's cost — no further direction was issued by the Court; (4) the Court declined to interfere with sub-para (ii) (action against police officers) as it is not against the petitioner, leaving the decision to the State Government; respondent Nos.8 to 19 were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies regarding inadequate compensation. Pending I.As. disposed of. No precedents were cited or relied upon in the order.
