SMT RADHAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/1372/2022-23 DATED 05.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY. NO.71/5 MEASURING 1 ACRE 18 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C, 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 ORAL ORDER Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

#2. Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR

#3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/1372/2022-23 dated:

05.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of land in Sy.No.71/5 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, situated at Obalapura Village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, which is produced as ANNEXURE-C. ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of developed land in the industrial layout formed by acquiring the land of the petitioner, on the lines of the GO dated 23.02.2021 bearing No.CI.103 SPQ (E) 2019 marked as ANNEXURE-D. iii) Pass such other order, writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs."

#4. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.71/5 measuring 1 Acre 18 Guntas, situated at Obalapura Village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District (schedule property). The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

#6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits the petitioner is 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).

#7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB submits that if the petitioner is willing to accept the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR 1966, the same will be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law.

#9. The submission is placed on record. 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 compensation under a consent award in terms of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act 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, 1 W.P. No.22495/2023 D.D. 30.10.2023 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR

#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.

#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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR 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)

#10. 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 2 W.P. No.23799/2025 D.D. 11.08.2025 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.

#11. In the present case, when the petitioner himself 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 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. 3 W.P.No.3092/2025 D.D. 05.02.2025 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:40727 WP No. 28779 of 2025 HC-KAR ii) The impugned General Award dated

05.01.2023 passed respondent No.3 (Annexure-C), insofar as the petitioner’s schedule property is concerned, is hereby quashed. iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner 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. iv) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit before the Competent Court, if any in accordance with law. PHM / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA