Disposed¶39

Smt. Nagamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026WP/7562/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB consent award; no agreement under Section 29 (2) Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act; endorsement dated 19.11.2025 bearing No. VIBHUSWA/KIADB/TU/COMP/NO.865/5139/2025-26 (Annexure-A) cannot be relied upon; representation Annexure-E dated 09.01.2026 for exclusion of Survey No.19/8, 3 acres 33 guntas, Goudanahalli village, Bellavi hobli, Tumkur; protection against dispossession pending decision; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; WP No. 7562 of 2026; disposed of; S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: respondents to consider the Annexure-E representation without reference to Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders; petitioner not to be dispossessed from the property till such decision is taken. ¶39

Smt. Nagamma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/KIADB could rely on the endorsement dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-A) treating the award as a consent award when there was no agreement between the petitioner and the authority regarding compensation in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Admittedly, there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-KIADB regarding compensation for the purpose of a consent award; if so, the respondents cannot rely on Annexure-A (the endorsement dated 19.11.2025).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Without reference to Annexure-A, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-E (dated 09.01.2026 seeking exclusion of Survey No.19/8) and pass appropriate orders.

¶38

Key takeaways

Till such decision is taken on the Annexure-E representation, the petitioner is not to be dispossessed from the property.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-KIADB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an 83-year-old landowner of Goudanahalli village, Tumkur, challenging the KIADB endorsement dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-A) by which the award was treated as a consent award, compensation being recorded as agreed between the parties and deposited before the Civil Court. Counsel for KIADB conceded, upon instructions, that there was no agreement as such under Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act. Held: in the absence of any agreement between the petitioner and the KIADB regarding compensation for the purpose of a consent award, the respondents cannot rely on Annexure-A; the respondents were directed, without reference to Annexure-A, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure-E) seeking exclusion of Survey No.19/8 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas of Goudanahalli village from the acquisition, and to pass appropriate orders; the petitioner is not to be dispossessed from the property till such decision. Petition disposed of (S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7562 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT GOUDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-34.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPT., VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572103.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.11.2025 BEARING NO. VIBHUSWA/KIADB/TU/COMP/NO.865/5139/2025-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the endorsement dated 19.11.2025 at Annexure-A. AnnexureA is the endorsement dated 19.11.2025, whereby the respondent - KIADB has observed that the compensation having been agreed between the parties and the amount of compensation has been deposited before for the Civil

¶27

Court, in terms of such agreement.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent - authority in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act and accordingly, respondents could not have construed of the petitioner having expressed consent.

¶32

Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - KIADB upon instructions submits that there was no agreement as such, however efforts were made by respondent - KIADB to convince the landowners to accept the amount and accordingly, the respondent authority has construed the award to be a consent award.

¶33

The petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-E dated 09.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has sought for exclusion of land in Survey No.19/8, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas of Goudanahalli village, from acquisition proceedings.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Admittedly, there is no agreement as such

¶37

between the petitioner and the respondent - KIADB regarding the compensation for the purpose of consent award. If that were to be so, the respondent cannot rely on Annexure-A.

¶38

Without reference to Annexure-A, the respondents to consider the representation at Annexure-E and pass appropriate orders. Needless to state, till such decision is taken, the petitioner not to be dispossessed from the property.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶40

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶41

MCR

Smt. Nagamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagamma v. 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

Arvind Kumar Parekh Vs the Commissioner

M/S Arunagiri Imports and Exports Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Kshema Mind Care Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Dr Swamy H L Vs the State of Karnataka

L Manjunath Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka