Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karntaka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 26.07.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.LAQ/KIADB/TU/2019-20 BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, TUMKUR VIDE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:27234 WP No. 15113 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ANNEXURE-D, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE LANDS SY.NO.108 MEASURING 0-27 GUNTAS OF LAND AND BEARING SY.NO.40 MEASURING 1 ACRE 27 GUNTAS INCLUDING KARAB LAND AND SITUATED AT YELADADLU VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the general award dated 26.07.2019 passed in Case No.LAQ/KIADB/TU/2019-20 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Tumkur, in so far as it relates to the land in Sy.No.108 and Sy.No.40 measuring 27 guntas and 1 acre 27 guntas respectively including karab situated at Yeladadlu village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount in deposit on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Tumakuru district and also to direct respondent No.2 to pass consent award in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

(i) The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.108 and Sy.No.40 measuring 27 guntas and 1

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27234 WP No. 15113 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

acre 27 guntas respectively including karab situated at Yeladadlu village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. She contends that respondent No.2 issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1966' for short). She claims that due to the death of her husband, she could not give her consent for acquisition of the land. In the meanwhile, a general award was passed by the respondent No.2 on 26.07.2019. She contends that as per the consent awards passed by the respondent No.2 the market value of the land was fixed at more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre. She claims that she has not challenged the acquisition proceedings and hence she is entitled to the benefit of a consent award.

¶31

(ii) She contends that after the general award was passed, the compensation is deposited before the Civil Court by an endorsement dated 03.12.2014 and the same was informed to the petitioner.

¶32

(iii) The petitioner being aggrieved by the general award dated 26.07.2019 passed, seeks for a consent award as provided under Section 29(2) of the Act, 1966.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27234 WP No. 15113 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.33825/2024, which was subsequently followed by another Co-ordinate bench in W.P. No.16571/2025. In the said cases, the Co-ordinate benches quashed the general awards and directed respondent No.2 to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for grant of consent awards in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, 1966. He therefore contends that the petitioner is similarly placed and prays that the same benefit be extended to her.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute that similar questions of fact and law was considered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the writ petition/s referred supra.

¶38

In view of the fact that the acquisition in the writ petitions referred above was also for the same purpose as the one on hand, the petitioner is entitled to be treated similarly.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the

¶40

general award dated 26.07.2019 passed by respondent No.2 in

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27234 WP No. 15113 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

respect of the land bearing Sy.No.108 and Sy.No.40 measuring 27 guntas and 1 acre 27 guntas respectively including karab situated at Yeladadlu village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk is quashed. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount deposited by it before the Principal Civil Judge, Tumkuru District and pass a consent award in favour of the petitioner as provided under Section 29(2) of Act, 1966 in respect of the aforementioned land.

¶44

This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

HJ

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Rathnamma v. the State of Karntaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathnamma v. the State of Karntaka

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 S N Somashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr D Rajan Vs Bangalore Development Authority

R.Srirama Vs the State of Karnataka

K B Muni Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shirur Mutt and Its Temple Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka