- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.494/2023 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: C.N. SRINIVASA RAO SINCE DECEASED. 1(a) SMT. NAGARATHNA S. RAO AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS W/O LATE C.N. SRINIVAS RAO. 2(b) C.S. HARISH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE C.N. SRINIVAS RAO. BOTH R/O NO.198-D 7TH B MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV., FOR SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B.C. ADV.,) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VISHVESHWARAYA MINI TOWER M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ EXECUTIVE MEMBER 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING 14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001. 4. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC COMPLEX, K H ROAD BANGALORE 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R3 SRI. HARISH N.N. ADV., FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN WP NO.43719/2014, DATED 13/03/2023, AND TO GRANT THE PRAYER MADE IN THE WP NO.43719/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.43719/2014 (LA-KIADB), wherein the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. Sri.S.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent-State has committed an error in constituting One Man Committee of Sri.Krishnappa and based on the recommendation of the said Committee, the compensation amount was determined which is contrary to law. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled for higher compensation than what is paid. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the same and dismissed the writ petition. The Court failed to take note of the fact that the right to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 property is recognized under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Sri.Harish N.N, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the order of the learned Single Judge and submit that the appellant received the compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act'), by executing the agreement wherein it is specifically agreed that he will not seek for higher compensation which has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed which does not call for any interference. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides. 5. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking prayer to declare that the compensation awarded by the respondent to the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and unfair and seeks to quash the same and further relief to quash the acceptance of Sri.Krishnappa Committee report which was accepted by the Government under Government Order dated 23.06.2010 and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the report is required to be entertained, then to direct the respondent to pass fresh award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and other reliefs. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions dismissed the writ petition. It is to be noticed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 that the respondent No.1 issued a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act and proposed to acquire various extents of land for the purpose of implementation of Bangalore Metro Rail project of the respondent No.4. The acquisition includes an extent of 1116.06 sq. mtrs. in Sy.No.31/1C of Yelchanahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, which belonged to the appellant. The final notification came to be issued on 01.01.2010. The Land Committee of the respondent No.4 determined the compensation payable to the acquired land and the same was accepted by the State Government vide order dated 23.06.2010. The original appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.40635/2010 which came to be disposed of on 11.11.2011 with certain directions including a direction to disperse the compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, issued a notice to the appellant under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, offering compensation as proposed by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 and sought for willingness as is evident from Annexure-R1. It is further noticed that the appellant submitted the claim petition along with the documents to the respondent- Authority requesting for dispersing of compensation as is evident from Annexure-R2. The appellant-land owner accepted the compensation amount by executing an agreement as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The agreement at Annexure-R3 and the indemnity bond executed by the appellant at Annexure-R4 clearly indicate that the receipt of compensation by the appellant would be towards the full and final settlement of the compensation towards the acquired land and he would not seek for higher compensation. The records also indicate that the appellant received a Cheque for a sum of Rs.4,76,46,008/- and the same was credited to his account. The respondents are right in submitting that the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking several reliefs, after receipt of the compensation and belatedly after 2½ years, is not maintainable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 6. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of SURESH D. BANKAPUR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.1 held that once the agreement in respect of the amount of compensation is arrived at and if the person interested signs the agreement and accepts the agreed amount in full and final settlement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, the same becomes final and the acquisition proceedings stand concluded, it is not open for the land loser to seek higher compensation or to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar opinion has been expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of SRI.SYED KHADER AND ORS. Vs. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, VALUATION COMMITTEE, BMRCL AND ORS.2. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench was assailed in Special Leave to Appeal No.18335/2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 11.11.2022 declined to interfere in the matter. In the case on hand, the appellant-land owner after 1 W.A.3007/13 and con. appeal dt.28.3.13 2 W.A.No.448/21 dt. 16.8.22 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4729-DB W.A. No.494/2023 accepting the offer of the respondent-Authorities, executing the agreement and the indemnity bond and receiving full and final compensation for the acquired land, now cannot challenge the same on any grounds. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the contentions urged, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35