Karnataka High Court
Sri. Koorlappa Since Deceased By His Lrs ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20421 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KOORLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SRI. GUNDAPPA
S/O LATE KOORLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SRI. KALAIAH
S/O LATE KOORLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAMAGUNDAIAH
S/O LATE KOORLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
4. SRI. DASAPPA
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O LATE KOORLAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE KOORLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O LATE KOORLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
TQ KANAKAPURA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
DIST RAMANGAR 562 112
7. SMT LAKSHMI
W/O CHANNEGOWDA,
D/O LATE KOORLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SANTHE KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ KANAKAPURA,
DISTRICT RAMANAGAR- 562 112.
8. SRI. RAMACHARI
S/O LATE MENTADACHARI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
TQ KANAKAPURA
DIST RAMANGARA 562 112
9. SRI. SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
TQ KANAKAPURA
DIST RAMANGARA 562 112
SRI. PERUMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
10. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE PERUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK,
11. SMT. GIRIYAMMA
W/O MEREPPA,
D/O LATE PERUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
12. SRI. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE PERUMAIAH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
13. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O BOGAIAH
D/O LATE PERUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
14. SRI. DEVARAJU
S/O LATE PERUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 10 TO 14 ARE
R/AT SIDDAPUARA VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
TQ KANAKAPURA,
DIST RAMANGARA- 562 112
SRI. RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
15. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
16. SRI. KRISHNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
17. SRI.LOKESH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
18. SMT. SOBHA
W/O SRINIVAS
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
PETITIONERS 15 TO 18 ARE
RESIDENT OF SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,
MEDAMARAHALLI POST,
HAROHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 112.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,
AND COMMERCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001
2. THE SEPCIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
K.I.A.D.B, 3rd BLOCK,
4tH STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU- 560 058
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
RAMANGARA- 562 117
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
K.I.A.D.B,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS RELATES TO ACQUISITION OF LANDS IN
QUESTION. QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD.
10.01.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM RAMANGARA IN LAC NO. 8/2013, LAC
NO. 14/2013, LAC NO. 15/2013, LAC NO. 11/2013 AND LAC
NO. 12/2013 PRODUCED AS ANNX-J, J-1, J-2, J-3 AND J-4
RESPECTIVELY., AND ETC.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the judgment and award dated 10.01.2014, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Ramanagara in LAC.Nos.8/2013, 14/2013, 15/2013, 11/2013 and 12/2013 at Annexures-J, J1, J2, J3 and J4 and also to quash the judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in MA.Nos.2/2016, 4/2016, 3/2016, 1/2016 and 5/2016 at Annexures-K, K1, K2, K3 and K4 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to award compensation to the acquired lands of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, as awarded in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.70 and 71 under the same notification as per Annexure-G dated 09.10.2009. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The lands of the petitioners were acquired by the respondent-State under a Preliminary Notification on 29.11.2004 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') at Annexure-A for industrial purposes, followed by the Final Notification dated 20.04.2005 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. Pursuant thereto, the possession was taken on 25.04.2005. The petitioners' predecessor late Koorlappa entered into a consent agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and executed an indemnity bond indemnifying a total sum of Rs.20,63,750/-. Subsequently, the petitioners sought parity in compensation with adjoining lands in Survey Nos.70 and 71 covered under the same Notification for which Rs.16,00,000/- per acre was awarded. The respondents did not accept the request, resulting in successive proceedings.
(i) WP.No.37283-37294/2010 seeking a writ of mandamus directing KIAD to pay compensation of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The said petition was disposed of on 03.12.2010 with liberty to the petitioners to work out their rights and remedy in accordance with law.
(ii) The petitioners filed petition in LAC.Nos.8/2013, 14/2013, 15/2013, 11/2013 and 12/2013 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act') seeking for fixation of compensation. The said petitions were dismissed on 10.01.2014.
(iii) Thereafter, the petitioners filed MA.Nos.2/2016, 4/2016, 3/2016, 1/2016 and 5/2016, which also came to be dismissed on 07.06.2018.
(iv) The petitioners aggrieved by the orders of the Civil Court and the District Court, preferred MSA.Nos.104/2018, 105/2018, 106/2018, 107/2018 and 108/2018, before this Court, which also came to be dismissed with liberty to convert the MSAs into CRPs.
(v) The petitioners converted the MSAs into CRPs in CRP.Nos.357/2019, 358/2019, 359/2019, 360/2019 and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR 361/2019 and the said petitions also came to be disposed of with a direction to convert the CRP into writ petition, culminating in the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings having originated under the same preliminary notification, the petitioners are entitled to the same compensation rate as similarly situated land owners in Sy.Nos.70 and 71. It is urged that discrimination in awarding different rates or compensation violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that though compensation was initially received under a consent agreement, such acceptance cannot bar the petitioners from seeking just and fair compensation. Learned counsel relies on Section 30 of the KIAD Act to argue that the provision of the LA Act apply mutatis mutandis, thereby enabling them to invoke Section 18 of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR the LA Act for reference to the Civil Court to seek enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reference filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the LA Act was wholly not maintainable, since the compensation has been determined under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act through a consent agreement and no award under Section 11 of the LA Act had been passed. It is contended that once compensation is voluntarily agreed upon and received without protest, the land owners are estopped from disputing it. A consent award or agreement, being in the nature of concluded contract, precludes further claims.
6. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
i. SURESH D BANKAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1.
1 WP.No.30007/2013(LA-KIASB) c/w WA.Nos.31109/2012, 31110/2012 and 31111/2012, D.D.28.03.2013.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339
WP No. 20421 of 2024
HC-KAR
ii. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS Vs.
THE THASILDAR2.
iii. SYED KHADER AND OTHERS Vs.
THE THASILDAR LAND ACQUISITION AND VALUATION COMMITTEE AND OTHERS3.
iv. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Vs. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR AND OTHERS4. v. MARIYAMMA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, MYSORE AND OTHERS5, to support the submission that neither a reference under
Section 18 of the LA Act nor writ petition is maintainable after execution of a consent agreement.
2 WA.No.448/2021 (LA-KIADB, D.D.16.08.2022 3 SLP.No.18335/2022, D.D.11.11.2022 4 2005 AIR SCW 1775, 5 ILR 2013 KAR 6307,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is evident from the admitted facts that the compensation in respect of the petitioners' land was determined under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, by way of a consent agreement executed between the petitioners' predecessor and the acquiring authorities. No award under Section 11 of the LA Act was passed. For invoking a reference under Section 18(1) of LA Act, there must exist an award. When compensation is fixed by agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, the question of making reference does not arise, as there is no "award" within the meaning of Section 11 of the LA Act. If no award is passed, an application under Section 18(1) or 18(3)(b) of the LA Act could not be maintainable, as there was no adjudicated award capable of being referred.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SURESH D BANKAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, at paragraph No.24.2 has held as under:
"24.2. Once the agreement in respect of the amount of compensation is arrived at and if the person interested signs the agreement and accepts the agreed amount as full and final settlement, wither under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act or in the course of enquiry under Section 11(2) of the L.A. Act, it becomes final and the acquisition proceedings insofar as such person is concerned, stands concluded/terminated and it is not open to such person to make an application either under Section 18 of the L.A. Act or to file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the relief as prayed for, in the present petitions."
10. Similarly, in the case of SANGAPPA (supra), the Apex Court held that once compensation has been determined and accepted under a consent award, such an award has the same binding force as a consent decree and no further reference or challenge is maintainable.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. Similarly, in the case of SYED KHADER (supra) which has been confirmed in SLP, the Division Bench has reaffirmed this principle, observing that where the acquisition compensation is based on a consent agreement neither under Section 18(1) nor an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the LA Act is maintainable.
12. Applying the aforesaid settled law to the present facts, this Court finds that the reference made by the petitioners before the Civil Court under Sections 18(1) and 18(3)(b) of the LA Act was clearly not maintainable, since the compensation was not determined by any adjudicated award, but by a voluntary agreement. The Civil Court and the Appellate Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the reference petitions and appeals.
13. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR case of NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. VITHAL RAO AND OTHERS6 is misplaced.
14. The said decision dealt with the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the context of discriminatory compensation under different statutes. In the instant case, the petitioners having accepted compensation under a consent agreement, the ratio of the said case does not aid his claim.
15. Likewise, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANOTHER Vs. KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY AND OTHERS7 relied upon by the petitioners, relates to an award passed by the Lok-Adalat under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, no such award exists and the compensation was fixed under consent agreement. In view of the settled proposition of law, there being no perversity or illegality in 6 AIR 1973 SC 689 7 (2018) 13 SCC 480
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41339 WP No. 20421 of 2024 HC-KAR the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, no ground to interfere.
16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from availing such other remedy as may be open to them in law, seeking re-determination or consideration of compensation on the principle of parity, including representation or claim under Section 28A of the LA Act. It is needless to observe that any such claim is made, shall be considered by the Competent Authority strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33