Karnataka High Court
Sri T D Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23847
WP No. 17555 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.17555 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI T.D. MANJUNATHA
S/O. T.A. DODDEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT THOVINAKERE AND POST
C.N. DURGHA HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR-572 138.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASHWINI P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA
NAGAVENI
Location: High
BENGALURU-01
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
NO.14/3, II FLOOR
R. P. BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-01
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23847
WP No. 17555 of 2025
HC-KAR
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER
NEAR SIT MAIN GATE
TUMKUR-572103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., H.C.G.P. FOR R-1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GENERAL
AWARD BEARING NO.SLAO/KIADB/TU/COM.NO.3506/2021-22
DATED 15/07/2021 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF LAND
BEARING SY.NO.19/8C MEASURING 0-091/2 PERCENTAGE
GUNTAS, SITUATED AT KODITHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA
HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, OF PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel, Smt. Ashwini P., appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned HCGP -3- NC: 2025:KHC:23847 WP No. 17555 of 2025 HC-KAR appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayer:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General award bearing No.KIADB:
SLAO/KIADB/TU/Com.No.3506/2021-22 dated 15/07/2021 passed by 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy No.19/8C measuring 0-091/2 guntas, situated at Kodithimmanahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District, of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at ANNEXURE-A.
ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.
iii) Issue any other orders or directions as deemed fit in the circumstance attending".
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22495/2023 disposed on 30.10.2023, wherein it has held as follows:
"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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:23847 WP No. 17555 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 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.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:23847 WP No. 17555 of 2025 HC-KAR
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 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."
4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44