- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7562 OF 2026 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT GOUDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-34. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPT., VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026 DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA 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 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.11.2025 BEARING NO. VIBHUSWA/KIADB/TU/COMP/NO.865/5139/2025-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the endorsement dated 19.11.2025 at Annexure-A. Annexure- A is the endorsement dated 19.11.2025, whereby the respondent - KIADB has observed that the compensation having been agreed between the parties and the amount of compensation has been deposited before for the Civil Court, in terms of such agreement. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent - authority in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act and accordingly, respondents could not have construed of the petitioner having expressed consent. 3. Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - KIADB upon instructions submits that there was no agreement as such, however efforts were made by respondent - KIADB to convince the landowners to accept the amount and accordingly, the respondent authority has construed the award to be a consent award. 4. The petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-E dated 09.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has sought for exclusion of land in Survey No.19/8, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas of Goudanahalli village, from acquisition proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18453 WP No. 7562 of 2026 5. Admittedly, there is no agreement as such between the petitioner and the respondent - KIADB regarding the compensation for the purpose of consent award. If that were to be so, the respondent cannot rely on Annexure-A. 6. Without reference to Annexure-A, the respondents to consider the representation at Annexure-E and pass appropriate orders. Needless to state, till such decision is taken, the petitioner not to be dispossessed from the property. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR