B.M. VIJAY KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; SRI N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING CASE NO.KIADB/METRO/LA/ARP-KDH- 4D/2024-25 DATED 11.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -A PASSED BY THE R3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Sri N.N. Harish, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.4.

4. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing General Award bearing Case.No.KIADB/Metro/LA/ARP-KDH-4D/2024-25 dated 11.03.2025 vide Annexure-A passed by the Third Respondent. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act for passing the consent Award in respect of Petitioners land measuring 70 square (Identification No.ARP-KDH-4D) in Sy.No.106/7 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR Amruthalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru district. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice and Equity."

5. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy.No.106/7 measuring 70 square feet, situated at Amruthalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli and Taluk, Bengaluru District. The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are willing to accept compensation by way of a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act, 1966’ for short).

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB submits that if the petitioners are willing to accept the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, the same will be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law.

9. The submission is placed on record.

10. Under identical circumstances, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri V. Rudranagaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and others1 (V.Rudranagaraju) had quashed the general award and directed respondent-Board consider representation of the land owner seeking determination of 1 W.P. No.22495/2023 D.D. 30.10.2023 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR compensation under a consent award in terms of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 and has held as under: “This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/2022- 23 dated 27.12.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in respect of land bearing Sy.no.40/7 measuring 0-12.08 guntas, situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at Annexure-C; (ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and etc.

2. Sri Omkara Murthy G & Sri M.S. Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submits petitioner was absolute owner of land bearing Sy.no.40/7, measuring of 12.08 guntas situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of which respondent - authorities had - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR initiated acquisition proceedings for Multi Modal Logistics Park project.

3. It was submitted that petitioner had no objection for acquisition of land by respondents - KIADB, but without issuing notice and granting opportunity to petitioner to avail compensation under consent award General Award, was passed. Since compensation under consent award was higher than under General Award, denial was contrary to law.

4. It was submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.no.22091/2022 disposed of on 30.11.2022, holding such denial as unsustainable, quashed General Award and directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation for passing consent award. Hence sought for passing similar order.

5. Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for respondent no.1 and Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted that in view of earlier decisions, respondent no.3 would consider petitioner's representation if petitioner furnished relevant documents in support of claim over property and sought for disposal of writ petition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR

6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

7. From above, is seen W.P.no.22091/2022, contention of petitioner therein about failure to provide opportunity to accept compensation under consent award which was higher than under General award was upheld and this Court set aside General Award and directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation for passing consent award. Said decision would squarely apply in this case.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of, impugned General Award No.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/2022-23

27.12.2022 Annexure-C passed by respondent no.3, insofar as it relates to petitioner's land in Sy.no.40/7, measuring 12.08 guntas situated at Hadihosahlli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobali, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, is hereby set aside.

9. Respondent No.3 - SLAO shall consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight weeks." (emphasis supplied) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR

11. Relying decision V.Rudranagaraju, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mr. Abdul Aleem and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others2 (Abdul Aleem) has also passed a similar order, directing the respondent-KIADB to consider the request of the landowner for grant of compensation under a consent award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966. Likewise case of Smt.Rukminamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others3 (Rukminamma) the Co-Ordinate Bench has taken an identical view. The said position of law is not disputed by either of the parties.

12. In the present case, when the petitioners themselves expresses willingness to accept compensation under a consent award, there exists no impediment for the authorities to consider such request. The purpose of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act is to facilitate voluntary and 2 W.P. No.23799/2025 D.D. 11.08.2025 3 W.P.No.3092/2025 D.D. 05.02.2025 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR amicable settlement of compensation between the parties. Refusal to extend such benefit would defeat the very object of the statute. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned General Award dated

11.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-A), insofar as the petitioners’ schedule property is concerned, is hereby quashed. iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners herein in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to state that, in the event of any dispute, the general award would stand restored. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:43353 WP No. 28035 of 2025 HC-KAR iv) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit before Competent Court, if any, in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12