Karnataka High Court
Sri. S Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23380
WP No. 17260 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. 17260 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S MANJUNATHA,
S/O. SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
ALURDUDDAHALLI, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY ITS SECRETARY,
by NAGAVENI DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA, 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
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23380
WP No. 17260 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING,
MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
NRUPATUNGA 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 QUASHING THE
GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/2414/2023-24
DATED 06.06.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN
RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.97, JMC BLOCK NO.1,
MEASURING 3 ACRES SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI
VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E 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 bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/2414/2023-24
dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3
in respect of land in Sy.No.97, JMC Block No.1,
measuring 3 Acres situated at Doddagollahalli
NC: 2025:KHC:23380
HC-KAR
Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District, in so far as the
petitioner is concerned, which is produced as
ANNEXURE-E.
ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent
herein to consider the case of the petitioner for
grant of developed land as per in the Industrial
Layout formed by acquiring the land of the
petitioner, on the lines of the GO dated
13.05.2008 bearing No CI.495.SPQ.2008 marked
as Annexure-F the GO dated 13.08.2007 bearing
No.CI.417.SPQ 2007 marked as Annexure-G and
SPQ (E) 2019 marked as ANNEXURE-H.
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. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the
judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of SRI
SALAGIRIGOWDA & Others Vs. THE STATE OF
NC: 2025:KHC:23380
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA & Others1, the co-ordinate bench has held as
follows:
"The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless
of the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to non-
extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable
under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER VS THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.39611-
39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.
2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the
Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by
filing Statement of Objections contending that the
petitioner's claim squarely falls in General Award
Category and not under Section 29(2) of the Act; he has
already accordingly received entire compensation;
therefore, he cannot be granted any relief at the hands
of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is
although broadly in agreement with the submission of
learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits
the petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced
benefit in terms of Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act,
provided that in similar cases such a benefit has been
accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell in the
General Award category.
If such a representation is made, KIADB would
consider the same in accordance with law and within a
period of three months.
W.P.No.21379/2022 disposed on 31.01.2023
NC: 2025:KHC:23380
HC-KAR
It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the
developed portion of the land in terms of Government
Notification dated 23.02.2021 in lieu of compensation as
per Annexure-H to the Petition.
Writ petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping
open all contentions.
No costs."
In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment
rendered by the co-ordinate bench and the facts being
undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT:BHK
