Sri M Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE AT: NO.49 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33623 WP No. 3005 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) NO.14/3, C.F.C BUILDING MAHASHRI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.POOJA M KOORSE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.GOPAL V BILALMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 25.11.2024 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider their representation dated 25.11.2024 and award interest on the consent award that was paid.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:33623 WP No. 3005 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioners claim that they are the owners of survey No.198/739 (old Sy.No.198) of Mahadevakodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The aforesaid land was acquired for various purposes in the year 2008 by the respondent No.1 for the purposes of the respondent No.2. This was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.45399-401/2013. All the writ petitions were allowed in terms of the order dated 18.09.2019. A general award was passed by the respondent No.3, which was questioned in W.P.No.17502/2023 on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to consent for an award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'the KIAD Act'). Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 18.08.2023 and the respondent No.3 was directed to pass a consent award within three months. It is stated that though a consent award was passed on 18.11.2023, the compensation was paid on 14.01.2024. The petitioner therefore filed a representation dated 25.11.2024 seeking a reasonable interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period 2018 to 2023.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:33623 WP No. 3005 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said representation is not considered and therefore prays for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the

¶37

representation.

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 however submits that the petitioners had consented for an award after the general award was quashed in W.P.No.17502/2023. He contends that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 18.08.2023 granted three months’ time to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pass a consent award. He contends that after passing the consent award, compensation was paid to the petitioners on 14.01.2024. He therefore contends that there is a delay of only 45 days, assuming that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had notice and knowledge of the order passed in W.P.No.17502/2023. He therefore prays that the delay, if any, be condoned.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:33623 WP No. 3005 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The petitioner had challenged the general award and sought for a consent award in W.P.No.17502/2023. The

¶44

said petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 18.08.2023 and the respondent No.3 was directed to pass a consent award within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The respondent Nos.2 and3 were represented by counsel in W.P.No.17502/2023. Therefore, they were bound to know of the contents of the order. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were thus expected to pass an award within three months. As a matter of fact, the respondent No.3 has passed an award within three months i.e. on 18.11.2023, but the payment of the compensation is delayed by nearly 45 days.

¶45

In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.2

¶46

and 3 are bound to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the consent award from 18.11.2023 till 14.01.2024.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed ;

¶49

ii. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33623 WP No. 3005 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

18.11.2023 till the date of payment to the petitioners, by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 25.11.2024. This shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri M Balakrishna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Balakrishna 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Indira Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Gencor Pacific Transporation and Logistics Private Limited Vs the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. M. B. Somanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

The Project Director, Vs Smt. Jyoti

L Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka