Sri Doddavenkateshappa Vs the State of Karnataka

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIZA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, KIADB, NO.14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶24

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE UNDATED GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2306/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶26

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:416 WP No. 36755 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice of respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar accepts notice for respondents No.2 and 3. The matter is taken up for disposal by consent.

¶33

The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the general award insofar as the petitioners' property is concerned and issue writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short KIAD Act) and to pass consent award.

¶34

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.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) submits that the petition itself could be disposed of while setting aside

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:416 WP No. 36755 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the general award insofar as the petitioners are concerned

¶40

and the respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB would consider the request of the petitioners and pass a consent award as per law.

¶41

In light of the said stand, taking note of the

¶42

directions passed in W.P.No.15026/2021, the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶43

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) The impugned general award at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioners' land is concerned, is set aside.

¶45

(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners 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.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:416 WP No. 36755 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

It is made clear that, in the event if there is any

¶49

dispute with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the general award at Annexure-A would stand revived.

¶50

Liberty is reserved to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award.

¶51

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in

¶52

terms of the above.

¶53

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶54

MCR

Sri Doddavenkateshappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Doddavenkateshappa 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 Vignesh Shishir Vs the Income Tax Officer

Pds Logistics International P Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

Thumpudi Srikanth Bhagavat Vs Union of India

Krishnappa. C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Eranna. B. L. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pillamma Vs the State of Karnataka