THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. BENGALURU - 560 001
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 s. 29(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In light of the said stand and taking note of the directions passed in W.P.No.15026/2021, the petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The impugned general award at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, is set aside. (ii) Respondent No.3 is directed…
Judgment
1. SRI GIRIGOWDA S/O LATE SALAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEELUR VILLAGE, MARALWADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 121 (BY SRI. SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA … PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL ARAEA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21476 WP No. 11609 of 2026 HC-KAR
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL ARAEA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/1 ARVINDA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB:LAQ:722:2019-20 DATED 11/10/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri. H. L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the general award at Annexure-A dated 11.10.2019 passed by respondent No.3. Petitioner - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21476 WP No. 11609 of 2026 HC-KAR has also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') and to pass consent award insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioner to the extent of 20 guntas in Sy. No. 107/11, Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, Harohalli Taluk, Ramanagara District (Bengaluru South District).
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was willing for a consent award and accordingly, the question of passing of general award does not arise.
Learned counsel for the respondent - Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) submits that the petition itself could be disposed of while setting aside the general award insofar as the petitioner is concerned and the respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer, - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21476 WP No. 11609 of 2026 HC-KAR KIADB would consider the request of the petitioner and pass a consent award as per law.
Operative part
In light of the said stand and taking note of the directions passed in W.P.No.15026/2021, the petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The impugned general award at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, is set aside.
(ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for passing of consent award and pass a consent award in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) It is made clear that, in the event if there is any dispute with regard entitlement apportionment of the award amount, the general award at Annexure-A would stand revived.
(iv) Liberty is reserved the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to withdraw the amount, if - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21476 WP No. 11609 of 2026 HC-KAR deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award. In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of the above, the petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — s. 29(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.