- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31787 WP No. 10572 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O B.M.NANJAPPA AGE 74 YEARS RESIDING AT PUSPAGIRI NO.26 VIDYANAGAR 2ND CROSS, B.H.ROAD SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. K.I.A.D.B DAVANAGERE – 577 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE 100 PERCENT SOLATIUM TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PROVIDED UNDER THE NEW ACT AND ETC., Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31787 WP No. 10572 of 2025 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 the following prayer: “1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to pay the 100% solatium to the petitioner for the land acquired by the respondent as provided under the new Act. 2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation / legal notice dated 8.11.2024 by the petitioner vide Annexure B. 3. Issue such other order or direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for both the parties would in unison submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31787 WP No. 10572 of 2025 W.P.No.297/2025 and connected matter, disposed on 22.04.2025. 4. The order passed by the coordinate bench in the aforesaid writ petitions, reads as follows: “2. However, statement of objections have been filed at the hands of the respondent, while copies of the notice issued under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 have been annexed at Annexure-R1 and Annexure-R2 is the representation given by the petitioner along with all the documents. Annexure-R3 is the order passed by the respondent stating that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre in respect of 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/1 of Gundichatnahalli, Nyamathi Taluk, Davangere District in W.P.No.297/2025 and compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.13,20,000/- per acre in respect of 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.86 of Shewalal Nagara (Konaganahalli) Shivamogga Taluk and District in W.P.No.506/2025. Annexure-R4 is the agreement signed by the petitioner agreeing to receive the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. Annexure-R5 is the indemnity bond executed by the petitioner and handed over to the respondent. Annexure- R6 is the payment receipt and Annexure-R7 is the statement showing the transfer of a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- to the account of the petitioner in WP No.297/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that this Court has considered similar grievances in WP.No.11095/2021 dated 11.08.2021 and has held, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others reported in (2005) AIR SCW 1775, that the law is well settled in this regard, that having accepted the compensation without any demur, the land loser is estopped and precluded from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31787 WP No. 10572 of 2025 maintaining an application for reference or approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the authorities to pay more compensation than what was agreed by the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners however contends that what the petitioners are seeking is 100% solatium and not enhancement of compensation. 5. In Desigowda and Others Etc. vs. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board reported in ILR 1995 KAR 2250 it was held that Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act provides that consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the Court regards it as immoral, or oppose to public policy. This Court has held that when the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent-Board, voluntarily agreeing to receive a particular sum of compensation, such agreement is not entered by only one landholder, but by a large number of landholders. Such agreements are contemplated and in fact specifically provided for as the main mode of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act. The petitioners did not challenge the agreement entered by them under Section 29(2) of the Act on the ground that they have obtained by misrepresentation or on the ground that they were opposed to public policy and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to now contend that the agreement is void. 6. That was the case where a Civil Court, in a reference, had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,500/- per acre for similar lands. Therefore, it was held that the petitioners now cannot contend that agreement voluntarily entered by the petitioners in the year 1985 was unreasonable and unfair. It was also held that it does not shock the conscience of the Court to hold that they are opposed to public policy. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31787 WP No. 10572 of 2025 7. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 29(2) which reads as follows: "Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.", this Court is of the considered opinion that an additional solatium is not contemplated in Section 29(2) of the Act. The State Government is required to pay the compensation as agreed in the agreement. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment and facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 159