Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17957 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SRI. NINGEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILLINAKOTE VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, by NAGAVENI VIDHANA SOUDHA, Location: High BANGALORE - 560 001.Court of Karnataka
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL 39, SHANTHI GRUHA, -2- BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GENERAL AWARD DATED 25.08.2021 BEARING NO. KIADB/BHUSWA-2/2021-22 PASSED BY THE R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY. NO. 121/14 MEASURING 11 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BILLINAKOTE VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers: " i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the General Award dated:25.08.2021 bearing No. KIADB/BhuSwa-2/2021-22 passed by the respondent No. 3 in respect of land in Sy.No.121/14 measuring 11 Guntas, situated at Billinakote Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, in so far as the -3- Petitioners are concerned, which is produced at ANNEXURE-D. ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. 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."
2. Heard Shri Sharan N. Majage, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Shri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel appearing to the petitioner submits in
plethora of identical matters, coordinate benches of this Court has considered the issue and answered in favour of the petitioner. One such order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.12671/2025, disposed on 26.04.2025, has allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. -4-
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law; the identical circumstance and afore-quoted judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court.
5. This Court in W.P.No.12671/2025, disposed on 26.04.2025, has held as follows:
“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a General Award has been passed only on the ground that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation, as could be seen in the discussions made in the General Award dated 24.08.2017 at Annexure-'D'.
3. Learned counsel submits that this Court has held
in several matters including the recent decision in the case of Harisha.R /vs./ State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.12703/2023 dated 27.06.2023 following an earlier decision in W.P.No. 6198/2015, that the land loser would be entitled for a better price as compensation instead of determination under a General Award. As a consequence, all such matters where it was found that a General Award was passed only on some technical ground that the land loser was not present at the time of hearing or such other technical reasons, this Court was of the considered opinion that since the land loser would get a better price if the compensation is awarded in terms of the agreement and not under a General Award, the award may be passed in terms of an agreement. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that similar benefit should be given to the petitioner.
4. On going through the following judgments, which were rendered by this Court: i) Smt. Rukmani v/s State of Karnataka-W.P No.39611-39612/2016 dated 16.09.2016; ii) Sri.Basavaraju vs. State of Karnataka -5-
- W.P.No.34071/2017 dated 28.08.2017; iii) Sri.Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.51362/2016 dated 21.03.2018; iv) Smt.Ningamma vs. state of Karnataka - W.P.No.6198/2015 dated 25.08.2015; v) Sri.Bhyraiah vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.40896/2017 dated 24.01.2019. this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief as was given in the cases mentioned hereinabove.
5. Consequently, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned General Award dated 24.08.2017 at Annexure-'D' insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned is set aside.
(iii) The respondent-Special Land Acquisition
Officer, KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for award of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by it pursuant to the General Award before the jurisdictional court.
(v) Needless to state that in the event of any
dispute, the General Award would stand restored.” -6- Therefore, the issues as answered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court supra and in the light of the issues standing covered on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and the directions. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23 CT:BHK