Karnataka High Court
Smt.Narasamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
WP No. 23564 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23564 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA,
W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
THYAMGOUNDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASHWINI P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed BY ITS SECRETARY,
by NAGAVENI
Location: DEPARTMENT OF
HIGH COURT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
OF
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-01.
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-2,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
WP No. 23564 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.14/3, CFC BUILDING,
MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN,
I FLOOR, N.R. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB.LAQ
NO.3/2025-26 DATED 01/04/2025 PASSED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER WAS THE
ABSOLUTE OWNER OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.25/2
MEASURING 0-20 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT OBALAPURA
VILLAGE, THYAMGOUNDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, OF PETITIONER ARE
CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS 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
appearing for respondent No.1 and 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:LAQ No.3/2025-26
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
HC-KAR
dated 01/04/2025 passed by 3rd respondent
in respect of the petitioner was the absolute
owner of land bearing Sy.No.25/2 measuring
0-20 guntas, situated at Obalapura Village,
Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural 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 circumstances attending."
3. The 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 dated 27.12.2022 passed
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
HC-KAR
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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC:31017
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 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
MD
