Karnataka High Court
Ashoka H M vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43607
WP No. 29470 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29470 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
ASHOKA H M
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HEBBIDDARAMETLU,
JAKKASANDRA POST, HAROHALLI HOBLI
AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA- 562 112.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIHARI A. V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
Digitally signed by
VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001
MAHALAKSHMI B M BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOA NO.14/1,
ARAVINDA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43607
WP No. 29470 of 2025
HC-KAR
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATEFOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB LAQ
1524/2013-14 DATED 13.12.2013 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
ORAL ORDER
Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.
2. Sri. Vasantha, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the General Award bearing -3- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR No.KIADB:LAQ:1524:2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 vide Annexure-A passed by the Third Respondent; in so for as the petitioner is concerned.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for allotment of developed land in respect of Petitioner's lands measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.255 and 2 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.277 of Bannikuppe Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara 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.
4. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.255 and 2 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.277 of Bannikuppe Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District (schedule properties). The said land -4- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 that 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, 1966, the same will be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law.
8. The submission is placed on record. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. 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 the respondent-Board to consider the 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, 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 the 1 W.P. No.22495/2023 D.D. 30.10.2023 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 that 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.
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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR 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, it is seen that in 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 dated 27.12.2022 vide Annexure-C passed by respondent no.3, insofar -8- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 upon the decision of 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 in the case of Smt.Rukminamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others3 (Rukminamma) the Co-Ordinate Bench has taken 2 W.P. No.23799/2025 D.D. 11.08.2025 3 W.P.No.3092/2025 D.D. 05.02.2025 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
ii) The impugned General Award dated 31.12.2013 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-A), insofar as the petitioner's schedule properties are concerned, is hereby quashed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43607 WP No. 29470 of 2025 HC-KAR
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.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15