Sri Aswathanarayana, Vs the State of Karnataka

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

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

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

¶26

SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/HO/SLAO/2061-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.45, MEASURING 1 ACRE SITUATED AT BYRADENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXUREC AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/SLAO/2061-P2/8091/2023-24 dated 14.07.2023

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32608 WP No. 19643 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

passed by respondent No.3 in respect of the land in Sy.No.60 of JMC Block No.45 measuring 1 acre situate at Byradenahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. They have also sought a direction to the respondents to consider their case for grant of developed land in the industrial layout formed under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶35

(i) The petitioners contend that they are the owners of the aforementioned land. The said land was notified for acquisition by respondent No.1 for the purposes of respondent No.2 to facilitate the establishment of an industrial area. The petitioners claim that the Price Advisory Committee in its 382^nd meeting held on 12.01.2023 fixed the compensation at a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre. They claim that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have utilized their land but taking note of some objection filed by an interloper, had passed a general award and deposited the compensation before the Civil Court. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 in an effort to pacify owners who were opposing acquisition of their land passed an order dated 13.07.2007 that it would provide

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32608 WP No. 19643 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

developed land instead of compensation in the form of cash. Later, by an order dated 13.05.2008, the earlier order dated 13.07.2007 was modified and it was ordered that developed land of 9583 sq.ft. per acre would be given away as compensation to the land loser. This was followed by a Government order dated 23.02.2021, in terms of which the earlier order dated 13.05.2008 was modified and the State Government offered 10781 sq.ft. of developed land per acre as compensation to the land losers. The petitioners therefore seek for a consent award in terms of the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 after setting aside the general award dated 14.07.2023.

¶39

(ii) The petitioners claim that similar cases filed by various land losers before this Court were considered favourably and respondent No.2 was directed to allot 10,781 square feet of developed land. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to the respondents to quash the general award and to consider granting developed land in lieu of compensation in the same industrial layout formed by respondent No.2.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:32608 WP No. 19643 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioners are entitled to developed land in the same layout and therefore appropriate directions be issued by quashing the general award and issuing a direction to respondent No.2 to allot developed land as per the Government order dated 23.02.2021.

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 in terms of which, it was resolved to grant 10,781 square feet of developed land per acre of land acquired in lieu of cash compensation. He therefore cannot dispute the entitlement of the petitioners to the grant of developed land in lieu of compensation.

¶45

In that view of matter, the petitioners are entitled to developed land in lieu of cash compensation as that is more beneficial to them, more particularly, in the light of the fact that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not paid any compensation to the petitioners till date.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32608 WP No. 19643 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed . The impugned general award bearing No.KIADB/HO/SLAO/2061-P2/8091/2023-24 dated 14.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.60 JMC Block No.45, measuring 1 acre situate at Byradenahalli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural district is quashed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to identify 10,781 square feet of developed land per acre and allot the same to the petitioners in the same industrial layout.

¶49