Smt Anjinamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, (METRO) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED SLAO (METRO)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶24

SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB/HO/SLAO/2601-P2/8091/2023-24, DATED 14.07.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY. NO. 60 JMC BLOCK NO 36, MEASURING 1 ACRE SITUATED AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of

¶30

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.36, measuring 1 acre situated at Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioners have also sought for a

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31438 WP No. 18959 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider their case for grant of developed land in lieu of compensation in the industrial layout by passing a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'KIAD Act').

¶34

The petitioners claim that they are the owners of Sy.No.60, JMC Block No.36, 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 petitioners claim that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have utilized their 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-P2/8091/2023-

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31438 WP No. 18959 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

24 dated 14.07.2023 and deposited the compensation amount before the competent Court. The petitioners claim that the 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 petitioners therefore claim that the general award passed by respondent No.3 is not beneficial to them and hence, pray 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.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation was earlier determined through a consent agreement entered into between the petitioners 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 petitioners being the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31438 WP No. 18959 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

lawful owners of the acquired land, are entitled to allotment of developed land in the industrial layout formed by respondentKIADB. He further submits that in similar facts and circumstances in W.P.No.37678/2025 filed by the landloser, a Coordinate 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

per acre is allotted, in lieu of monetary compensation. However, he submits that if the petitioners submit an appropriate representation, the same will be duly considered in accordance with law.

¶44

In view of the above submission, following order is

¶45

passed:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31438 WP No. 18959 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(ii) The impugned 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.36, measuring 1 acre situated at Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, is hereby quashed.

¶51

(iii) The petitioners are 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.

¶52

(iv) The said consideration by the KIADB shall be within eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioners.

¶53

(v) The respondent-KIADB is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited before the Civil

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:31438 WP No. 18959 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Court pursuant to the general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/LA/2601-P2/8091/2023-24 dated 14.07.2023.

¶58

(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 petitioners.

¶59

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.

¶60

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶61

PMR

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt Anjinamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anjinamma 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 Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

R Nagendra Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Ramu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.Basavaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri M K Padmanabha Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Chikkamadhu Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer