Sri Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18804 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O BALAPPA (LATE) AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 157

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R. RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NO.2/1 AND 2/3, ACHARYA TULASI ROAD 1^ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (METRO), KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED SLAO (METRO)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1;

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/HO/LA-2601P2/8091/2023-24, DATED 14-07-2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY. NO. 60, JMC BLOCK NO.23, MEASURING 1 ACRE SITUATED AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/LA/2601-P2/8091/2023-24 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the land in Sy.No.60, JMC Block No.23, measuring 1 acre situated at Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of developed land in lieu of compensation in the industrial layout by passing

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'KIAD Act').

¶28

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Sy.No.60, JMC Block No.23, measuring 1 acre situated at Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, which was proposed for acquisition for formation of industrial layout vide preliminary notification dated 09.06.2010 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, followed by a final notification dated 25.05.2022. It is contended that the Price Advisory Committee in its 382^nd meeting held on 12.01.2023 have determined the compensation payable to those who consent for an award at Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre. The petitioner claims that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have utilized his land without paying the compensation. However, it is further contended that the respondent - KIADB without considering the revenue records and without verifying the objections filed by some interloper, straight away passed the general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/LA/2601-P2/8091/202324 dated 14.07.2023 and deposited the compensation amount before the competent Court. The petitioner claims that the

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

State Government has issued a Government Order dated 23.02.2021 in terms of which, it has directed respondent No.2 to allot 10,781 sq.ft. per acre of developed land instead of compensation in cash. The petitioner therefore claims that the general award passed by respondent No.3 is not beneficial to him and hence, prays that the same be quashed and a direction be issued to pass an award by consent and grant 10,781 sq.ft. per acre developed land in the same layout.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation was earlier determined through a consent agreement entered into between the petitioner and the State under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. However, the respondent No.3 entertained objections of an interloper and passed the impugned general award on 14.07.2023, which could not have been done once a consent award was agreed upon. He further submits that as per the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 at Annexure-D, the extent of developed land is increased to 10,781 sq. ft. per acre, and therefore, the petitioner being the lawful owner of the acquired land, is entitled to allotment of developed land in the industrial layout formed by respondentKIADB. He further submits that in similar facts and

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

circumstances in W.P.No.37678/2025 filed by the land loser, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the prayer of the petitioner therein for grant of developed land in lieu of compensation and vide order dated 15.12.2025, was pleased to order to grant the developed land in lieu of compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the Government Order dated 23.02.2021, by which developed industrial land of 10,781 sq.ft. per acre is allotted, in lieu of monetary compensation. However, he submits that if the petitioner submits an appropriate representation, the same will be duly considered in accordance with law.

¶37

In view of the above submission, following order is

¶38

passed:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶41

ii. The impugned general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/LA/2601-P2/8091/2023-24 dated

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

14.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the land in Sy.No.60, JMC Block No.23, measuring 1 acre situated at Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, is hereby quashed;

¶46

iii. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to respondent - KIADB, expressing consent for an award and agree to receive 10,781 sq.ft. per acre developed land in lieu of monetary compensation, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent-KIADB shall consider the same in accordance with law and in terms of Government Order dated 23.02.2021 as per Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders; iv. The said consideration by the KIADB shall be within eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner;

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:31142 WP No. 18804 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

v. The respondent-KIADB is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/LA/2601-P2/8091/2023-24 dated 14.07.2023;

¶50

vi. In the event, if there is no consensus arrived for grant of developed land or if there are any unresolved objections, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take appropriate action but in accordance with law and after notifying the petitioner.

¶51

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.

¶52

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶53

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath 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

Kumari Kiran Vinod Vs the State of Karnataka

B a Gunda Bhatta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H M Mahesh Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Jayram Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

R Nagendra Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Ramu Vs State of Karnataka