Writ Petition No. 11661 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.11661 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRI. B. S. JAYARAM, S/O. LATE SANJEEVAIAH. B. T, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILLANKOTE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-562 111. (BY SRI. D. S. JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO. 49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 1, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL, NELAMANGALA, OFFICE SITUATED AT NO. 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) (BMICP) AND BENGALURU RURAL, NELAMANGALA, OFFICE SITUATED AT NO. 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 04.07.2023 PASSED BY THE SLAO-2 OF KIADB/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2499/2023-24 THEREBY AWARDING THE SUM OF RS.2,37,52,861/- (RUPEES TWO CRORES THIRTY SEVEN LAKHS FIFTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE ONLY) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri.C.Ramakrishna, who is present in the Court takes notice for respondents No.2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the petition along with annexures on the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. In terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.4609/2020, dated 28.02.2020, the writ petition stands
Decision
disposed of in the following terms: "The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have passed a general award, while the petitioner seeks payment of compensation by way of a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1996 (for short, ‘KIAD Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court a decision of a co- ordinate Bench in the case of Smt.Kariyamma and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, which was decided on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 19th March, 2018 in W.P.Nos.45731 and 46444/2017 and connected matters. In the said matters, the co-ordinate bench, while noticing a decision of this Court in Smt.Ningamma Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, which was decided on 25.08.2015, in W.P.No.6198/2015 held that a similar consideration is necessarily to be made in the instant petitions. 3. The portion extracted in Smt.Ningamma’s case is extracted herein below for better understanding. “Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30th December 2013, Annexure-A, of the 3rd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development board (for short KIADB) insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.444 of Cheeluru village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that her claim for determination of compensation ought to be by way of an agreement under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’) since willing to the enter into an agreement a obtained in compromise decree dated 6.12.2014 O.S.126/2013 whereunder the property in question is declared to be the absolute property of the petitioner. having after 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the ‘KIAD Act’ provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land. 3. In the result, this petition A direction shall ensue is allowed. General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the ‘KIAD Act’ to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 31st October 2015. It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is any dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved.” 4. In Smt.Kariyamma’s case, the General award was set aside insofar of the petitioners therein were concerned and directions were issued to the respondents to consider the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 case of the petitioners for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The General Award made in the instant petition at Annexure-A, insofar as the petitioner is concerned is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The consideration shall be made as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that in the event of there being any dispute with regard to title, the observation as contained in the above extracted portion shall become applicable to the present case as well. 7. Respondent No.3 is permitted to withdraw the compensation, if any, is already deposited, in order to enable respondent No.3 to reconsider the compensation in terms of the directions issued by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16293 WP No. 11661 of 2025 8. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents are permitted to file Memo of Appearance/Vakalath, as the case may be, within a period of two weeks from today." Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27