Disposed¶43

Smt. R Chayadevi v. the State of Karnataka

Land acquisition – KIADB

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2026WP/1791/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1996; Section 29(2) KIAD Act; consent award vs general award; General Award 09-05-2022; KIADB:LAQ No.358/2022-23; O.S.No.703/2012 decree 1/9th share; Survey No.7 Baragenahalli Village Sompura Hobli Nelamangala Bangalore Rural; Articles 226 and 227 certiorari; W.P.No.15026/2021; WP No.1791 of 2026 (LA-KIADB); High Court of Karnataka; S Sunil Dutt Yadav; disposed 16-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

General award at Annexure-L set aside qua petitioners' share per O.S.No.703/2012 decree; respondent No.3 directed to pass consent award under Section 29(2) KIAD Act within four months; general award to revive on any dispute over entitlement/apportionment; liberty to SLAO, KIADB to withdraw amount deposited before the Civil Court. ¶43

Smt. R Chayadevi Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the General Award dated 09.05.2022 passed by respondent No.3 (SLAO, KIADB) should be set aside insofar as the petitioners' share (flowing from the decree in O.S.No.703/2012), so as to enable a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The impugned general award at Annexure-L is set aside insofar as the share of the petitioners as in terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.703/2012.

¶46

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 (SLAO, KIADB) is directed to consider the petitioners' claim regarding their share per the O.S.No.703/2012 decree and pass a consent award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within four months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶47
If there is any dispute with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the general award at Annexure-L would stand revived.ratio¶49
Liberty is reserved to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to withdraw the amount deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition – KIADB – Consent award under S. 29(2), KIAD Act 1996. Petitioners claiming a 1/9th share (together with defendant No.9) via the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.703/2012 in respect of Survey No.7, Baragenahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, sought quashing of the General Award dated 09-05-2022 (No. KIADB:LAQ No.358/2022-23) passed by respondent No.3, having been unable, owing to litigation, to opt for an award by agreement under Section 29(2). Taking note of the KIADB counsel's stand and directions in W.P.No.15026/2021, the court (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J) disposed of the petition: the general award was set aside qua the petitioners' share; respondent No.3 was directed to consider the claim and pass a consent award under Section 29(2) within four months; the general award would revive upon any dispute over entitlement/apportionment; liberty was given to the SLAO to withdraw the amount deposited before the Civil Court.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 1791 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. R CHAYADEVI, W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 25/16, SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI, LAKSHMIPURA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶9

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. POORNIMA, W/O RAMESH C.T, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT: GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111.

¶11

SRI. R. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT: JANATHA COLONY, MADAVARA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, MADHANAYAKANAHALLI,

¶12

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHANBHAG SANJEEVRAO SADANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, #14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A.S. HARISH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1

¶23

SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 09-05-2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 3 IN NO KIADB:LAQ NO.358/2022-23 WHICH IS PRODUCED

¶27

AT ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 CONSIDERATION ONLY LAND BEARING SURVEY NO 07 MEASURING 2 ACRE 15 1/2 GUNTAS OF BARAGENAHALLI, VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have sought for setting aside of the General Award dated 09.05.2022 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-L, insofar as the petitioners' share in terms of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court passed in O.S.No.703/2012, relating to the property in Survey No.7 of Baragenahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

¶35

The petitioners submit that they were not able to exercise their option of having the benefit of an award in terms of an agreement as per Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the KIAD Act"). It is submitted that, in light of the litigation, they could not exercise such option, but insofar as the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.703/2012 granting 1/9^th share of the scheduled properties along with defendant No.9 in the said suit.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is further submitted that the General Award

¶40

may be set aside, reserving liberty to the respondentKarnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as "KIADB") to consider passing of the award by way of agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶41

The case of the petitioners is that they were willing for a consent award and accordingly, the question of passing of general award does not arise.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent - KIADB submits that the petition itself could be disposed of while setting aside the general award insofar as the petitioners is concerned and the respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB would consider the request of the petitioners and pass a consent award as per law.

¶43

In light of the said stand and taking note of the directions passed in W.P.No.15026/2021, the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15526 WP No. 1791 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(i) The impugned general award at Annexure-L insofar as the share of the petitioners as in terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.703/2012 is set aside.

¶47

(ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners as regards their share in terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.703/2012 for passing of consent award and pass a consent award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶48