Sri. Raju Since Dead by His Lrs., Vs the State of Karnataka

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 39, 4TH FLOOR, BHARATH SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI HANISH A.S, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 11-10-2019 BEARING NO.K.I.A.D.B./L.A.Q 722/201920, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS LAND VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:17688 WP No. 9842 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶38

Sri. P. V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.

¶39

Petitioners have sought for setting aside of the general award dated 11.10.2019 at Annexure-A insofar as the property of the petitioners is concerned and have sought for a further direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass an award in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') while awarding developed land as compensation in lieu of cash compensation.

¶40

Petitioners submit that they were willing for a consent award to be passed in terms of the agreement as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, while a general award has been passed.

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:17688 WP No. 9842 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that necessary representations have been made at AnnexuresK to K2 wherein the petitioners have specifically sought for grant of developed land in lieu of cash compensation in terms of the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 insofar as the property of the petitioners is concerned.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - KIADB submits that the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 which governs the allotment of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation is a relief that is granted to the land owners and is a part of final proceedings. It is further submitted that representations would be considered.

¶46

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The impugned general award dated 11.10.2019 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.3 is set aside insofar as the petitioners' land is concerned.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:17688 WP No. 9842 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(ii) The representations of the petitioners at Annexures-K to K2 are directed to be considered in terms of the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 at Annexure-J and appropriate orders to be passed within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

(iii) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the competent Court pursuant to the general award.

¶54

(iv) It is made clear that, in the event if there is any dispute with regard to entitlement and apportionment, the general award at Annexure-A would stand revived.

¶55

(v) In the event there is no consensus arrived at for grant of developed land, petitioners are entitled for compensation in terms of the agreement to be entered into under the KIAD Act.

¶56

In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of .

¶57

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶58

VP

Sri. Raju Since Dead by His Lrs., v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Raju Since Dead by His Lrs., 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

T. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. K. Jagadish Babu Vs State of Karnataka

The Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. a S Sampath Kumar Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri. N Eregowda Vs the Commissioner

M/S Talampally Properties Vs the Superintendent