SRI. ASHOK CHAND v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA K.,ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

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

#3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KRIDE) HEAD OFFICE, KIADB NO.14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. POOJA M KOORSE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 20-03-2026 BEARING NO.KIADB/KRIDE/ACQ/-- /2025-26 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 196.43 SQMTS, IN SY.NO.99/1, OF HORAMAVU VILLAGE, KR PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, 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 R. NATARAJ - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the general award bearing No.KIADB / KRIDE / BHUSWA / -- /2025-26 dated

20.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents to consider their case by passing a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short).

#2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.99/1 totally measuring 35 guntas situate at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, which they purchased jointly vide sale deed dated

21.03.2003 and they are in possession of the same and paying tax. They contend that even though they are in possession, the name of the third party - Vasanth Kumar is shown in notification thereby said Vasanth Kumar misled respondents' authorities during issuance of notice. They contend that out of 35 guntas of land, the respondents' authorities acquired 196.43 square meters for formation of Bengaluru Sub-Urban Rail Project vide preliminary notification dated 17.01.2025 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR followed by a final notification dated 29.03.2025. The petitioners contend that the respondent - KIADB without considering the revenue records, straight away passed the general award dated 20.03.2026 and deposited compensation amount before the competent Court. The petitioners claim that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have neither issued any notice regarding taking possession nor called upon them to enter into a consent agreement as provided under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act but the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned general award. The petitioners therefore claim that the general award passed by respondent No.3 is not within their knowledge and not beneficial to them and hence, prays that the same be quashed and a direction be issued to pass an award by consent as provided under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 ought to have issued notice as mandated under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, without issuing notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard as provided under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, respondent No.3 passed the general award and - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR therefore, the petitioners being the lawful owners of the acquired land, are entitled to give their consent under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act before passing the general award. He further submits similar facts and circumstances W.P.No.15886/2025 filed by the landloser, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025, was pleased to direct respondent No.3 (SLAO) to consider the claim of the petitioners therein under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. He submits that the petitioners herein must be considered on par.

#4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the above order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and submits that if a representation is filed, the claim of the petitioners would be considered as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and in accordance with law.

#5. In view of the above submission, following order is passed:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR (ii) The impugned general award bearing No.KIADB/ KRIDE/BHUSWA/ -- /2025-26 dated 20.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3 in respect of Sy.No.99/1, measuring 196.43 square meters situate at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru District is hereby quashed. (iii) The petitioners are granted liberty to submit a representation respondent - KIADB, expressing consent for an award within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, respondent-KIADB shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. (iv) The said consideration by the KIADB shall be within eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioners. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34950 WP No. 20903 of 2026 HC-KAR (v) The respondent-KIADB is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award bearing No.KIADB / KRIDE / BHUSWA / -- /2025-26 dated 20.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3. (vi) In the event, if there are any unresolved objections, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take appropriate action but in accordance with law and after notifying the petitioners.

#6. Learned High Court Government Pleader respondent No.1 and Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to file memo of appearance and Vakalath respectively within ten days.

#7. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive consideration and same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20