- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19862 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: MR. S. LINGARAJU S/O SIDDAPPA D, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT VEMGAL, SINGIHALLI, KOLAR - 563101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, 49 KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE CURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 1 KIADB, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560010. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RP BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING KIADB.L.A.Q.1524/2013-14 DTD. 30.12.2013 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SY.NO. 51/7, MEASURING 13 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT SHINGIHALLI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK), 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 Heard Shri Ajit P.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Sanjay, learned counsel for Shri B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers: 1. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the general award bearing ೆಐಎ: ಎ.ಎ.ಕೂ : 1524/2013-14 dated 30.12.2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No.2 in so far as the land of the Petitioner is concerned (Sy.No.51/7, measuring 13 guntas, situated at Shingihalli village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk). 2. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Representation dated 28.01.2025 and by taking into consideration the communication of the Respondent No.2 dated 10.06.2025 vide Annexure F and G dated 10/6/95 bearing ೆಐಎ: ಎ.ಎ.ಕೂ : 336/2025-26 for allotment of developed land in lieu of compensation for the acquired land belonging to the Petitioner herein. 3. Pass such order/s as deemed fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case; 4. For costs." 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.16220/2023 disposed on 31.07.2023, wherein it has held as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a general award has been passed only on the ground that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation, as could be seen in the discussions made in the general award dated 06.06.2023 at Annexure-A. Learned counsel submits that this Court has held in several matters including the recent decision in the case of Harisha.R /vs./ State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.12703/2023 dated 27.06.2023 following an earlier decision in W.P.No.6198/2015, that the land loser would be entitled for a better price as compensation instead determination under a general award. As a consequence all such matters where it was found that a general award was passed only on some technical ground that the land loser was not present at the time of hearing or such other technical reasons, this Court was of the considered opinion that since the land loser would get a better price if the compensation is awarded in terms of the agreement and not under a general award, the award may be passed in terms of an agreement. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that similar benefit should be given to the petitioner. 2. On going through several of the following judgments which were rendered by this Court: i) Smt. Rukmani v/s State of Karnataka - W.P No.39611-39612/2016 dated 16.09.2016; ii) Sri.Basavaraju vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.34071/2017 dated 28.08.2017; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 iii) Sri.Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.51362/2016 dated 21.03.2018; iv) Smt.Ningamma vs. state of Karnataka - W.P.No.6198/2015 dated 25.08.2015; v) Sri.Bhyraiah vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.40896/2017 dated 24.01.2019; this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief as was given in the cases mentioned above. 3. Consequently, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned general award dated 06.06.2023 at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner’s land is concerned is set aside. (iii) The respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for award of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by it pursuant to the general award before the jurisdictional court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 (v) Needless to state that in the event of any dispute, the general award would stand restored. Ordered accordingly." 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court supra, the petition be disposed on the same terms. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned general award dated 30.12.2013 at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned is set aside. (iii) The respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioners for award of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The respondent–Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36578 WP No. 19862 of 2025 amount that has been deposited by it pursuant to the general award before the jurisdictional Court. (v) Needless to state that in the event of any dispute, the general award would stand restored. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75 CT: BHK