- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2012 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR D. RAVISANKAR. 2. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR D. RAVISANKAR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKSHITH PAI AND MS. DEEPA SHRISHA, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4TH FLOOR, 5TH PHASE, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER RASTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 3. SRI AGNI SRIDAR AND KODIHALLI CHANDRASHEKAR, AGE: MAJOR JANAPARA SANGATANEGALA OKKOOTA, NO.164, B ROAD, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 009 4. SMT MAHADEVAMMA AGE : MAJOR No.136/1-B, 2ND MAIN ROAD SY NO.73, BAGEGOWDA BADAVANE H D PAPAYYA, NO.7 ROSE GARDEN PARK ROAD, COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 005. 5. SRI SIDDALINGEGOWDA S/O LATE BAIREGOWDA AGE : MAJOR MAVINAKERE-572221 TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 6. SRI P N KEMPEGOWDA & ORS (ADDRESS NOT GIVEN) 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 8. SRI. C. KRISHNΑΡΡΑ AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. CHENNAVEEREGOWDA @ CHIKKYADEGOWDA 9. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI. AJJEGOWDA 10. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI. NANJAIAH 11. MR. T. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. THIRUMALAIAH 12. SMT. KEMΡΑΜΜΑ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA 13. SRI KRISHNA KSHEMAABHIVRUDDI SANGHA [REGD.] REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. SIDDALINGAIAH 14. SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI. SIDDARAJU 15. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. BORAIAH DEAD BY LRS. 15[A] 15[B] SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MR. CHANDRASHEKAR N AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 15[C] 15[D] S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH SMT. SOWBHAGYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH W/O KIRAN MR. HARISH N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH RESPONDENT NOS.15(A) TO 15(D) ARE RESIDING AT NO.22 NEW NO.37, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, AVALAHALLY, GEF POST MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 26 {ADDED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2025} 16. SMT. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. RANGAIAH 17. MR. NINGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SRI. JAVAREGOWDA 18. SRI. K. RAVICHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. KANNAIAH, ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 18: NO. 84, SY. NO.73, BOGEGOWDA LAYOUT, VEERABHADRA NAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI, KEREKODI ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 19. SRI. Μ. Κ. KEMPE GOWDA S/O M. J. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 NO.1, CHOWDESHWARI TWO WHEELER CLINIC GAVIPURAM GUGGALLI, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI PRUTHA BHARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI G.R.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SMT. S.THEJASWINI, ADVOCATE FOR R15; SRI. T.N.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R19; SMT. S.B.LAKSHMI ADVOCATE FOR R8-R14, R15(A-D) & R16-R18; SRI MALAHAR RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI S.A. AHMED, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R7; R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.07.2011 IN H.R.C. NO.2145/11 C/W 1945/11, 2405/11 AND 2452/11 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2011 (ANNEXURE-Q) BEARING NO.BMICP/L.A.Q/CR/16/2011-12, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in H.R.C.No.2145/2011 connected with H.R.C.Nos.1945/2011, 2405/2011 and 2452/2011, whereby the following directions have been given:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 "(i) By taking into consideration that who were all residing in Bagegowda Layout as on 15-03- 2011 and in whose favour the documents of Electric Company and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board or Local Bodies are available, alternative arrangement has to be made to them i.e., sites has to be distributed and for the families who were living there and who have been put to hardship, a compensation of Rs.3-00 (Three) Lakh each has to be paid. (ii) The Commission is of the opinion that the unnecessary action was taken by the Police Department on the people living there which was not in accordance with the one that has to be taken in Civic Society. The Police officers who are responsible for this shall be identified and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore city has to take action against them as per Service Rules. (iii) As the Government itself has issued order regarding Rehabilitation and Resettlement in accordance with the conditions contained therein, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board has to undertake the Rehabilitation work of the people who were residing there and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore urban has to take up its supervision. Under R & R Package, the entire expenditure of the Rehabilitation has to be borne by the NICE company. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 Taking action in the above terms is the duty of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Further the compensation has to be paid at the prevailing market rates to those, the said 35 guntas of land officially belonged, because compensation has to be paid keeping in view the earlier rate and the prevailing market rate. All the above action have to be taken in three months and the concerned Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board shall submit a report to the Commission as per Section 18(E) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. With the aforesaid instruction and the recommendations, Case No.2145/11 c/w 1945/11, 2405/11 & 2452/11 are disposed off accordingly." 2. Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakshith Pai and Ms. Deepa Shrisha, learned counsels for the petitioner's company submits that all land losers were paid compensation as determined in the award. The further compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to each of the complainant was wholly uncalled for and it was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission. He has further submitted that the direction that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 compensation has to be paid at the prevailing market rates to the land owners who had 35 gunta of land also required to be set aside. 3. It is submitted that when once the award was not challenged by the landloser and no proceedings were drawn regarding determination of alleged inadequate compensation, the Commission would not have the power, as the Commission is not an appellate authority in respect of the award determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. If landloser was aggrieved by the amount of compensation for his land acquired, he had a remedy to file an appeal. No provision under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, empowers the Commission to enhance the compensation for the land which has been acquired. He therefore, submits that the directions in sub-para Nos.(i) and (iii) of para No.4 of the impugned order are required to be deleted and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Human Rights Commission has submitted that under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, after making inquiry in respect of the complaint, the Commission may make - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 a recommendation and send a report for payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or the victim or the members of the family as the Commission may consider necessary. Not only this, the Human Rights Commission can also make the recommendation to the State Government to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons. 5. It is therefore submitted that the Commission has only recommended for certain actions after considering the complaint i.e. for enhancement of compensation and payment of the present market rates in respect of 35 guntas of land to the land owner. It is therefore submitted that the said directions do not fall outside the power of the Commission as vested under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. 6. Mr. S.A. Ahmed, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that direction at sub-para No.(iii) of para No.4 of the impugned order has been acted upon and an affidavit is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 filed on behalf of the Government. Para Nos.7 and 8 of the said affidavit read as under:- "7. The Government of Karnataka issued an order on 23.04.2001. The order reads as under:- Under the circumstances explained above, Government are pleased to accord sanction for adoption of the revised Rehabilitation and resettlement package of the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project as outlined in the Annexure to this order for Rs.19,11,83,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Eleven Lakhs and Eighty Three Thousand only) as submitted by M/s. NICEL with the following conditions:- a) The entire cost of R & R package shall be borne by M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., (NICEL) including any unforeseen contingencies and future claims by the PAFs. b) KIADB, being the Land Acquisition, shall be solely responsible for the implementation of the R & R package. c) The Revenue Department, through its Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts shall supervise the implementation by KIADB. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 8. The recommendations made by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in its cases bearing No.HRC 2145/11 C/w. 1945/11, 2045/11 and 2452/11 are placed before the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in its 309th meeting held on 27.08.2011. The Board resolved to examine the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package by the sub-committee of the Board and further resolved to award a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to each affected families. The compensation amount shall be borne by M/s. NICE Company. The copy of the Board resolution is produced as Annexure - R1." 7. It is not in dispute that before making the recommendations as extracted hereinabove, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, which is the mandate of Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 16 is specifically provided that an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the person(s) who would be prejudicially affected by any direction or order passed by the Commission. In the present case, the directions are against the petitioner, but petitioner was not issued with a notice of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 hearing and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 8. We are also of the view that once the compensation has been determined under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, any person aggrieved by payment of inadequate compensation should file the appeal before the competent forum or the authority. But the State Human Rights Commission would not get the jurisdiction to enhance the compensation as much as the complete code is provided for determination of the compensation and its enhancement under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. We therefore, are of the view that the impugned order so far as the directions at sub-para Nos.(i) and (iii) of para No.4 are concerned fall outside the purview of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act. However, as the State Government has acted upon the recommendation contained in sub-para No.(iii) of para No.4 of the impugned order, no direction is required to be issued by this Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10124-DB WP No. 13 of 2012 9. The State Government may take necessary decision so far as the direction at sub-para No.(ii) of para No.4 of the impugned order is concerned and we would not like to interfere with the direction at sub-para No.(ii) of para No.4 inasmuch as it is not against the petitioner in any way. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of present writ petition. 11. The respondent Nos.8 to 19 may take appropriate remedy, if they are aggrieved by payment of inadequate compensation or any other reliefs, which they think should be granted to them. 12. In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4