1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 12733 OF 2020(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
KAUSAR.S
W/O ABDUL REHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.36, 5TH MAIN
NEAR TO KOUSAR NAGARA MASQUE
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 032.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASHINATH.J.D, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD
# 14/3, II FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING
NRUPATHUNAGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(METRO RAIL PROJECT), I FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE: B.M.T.C., COMPLEX
3RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.R.ROOPA, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3
SRI. N.N.HARISH, ADV. FOR R-4)
 2

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GENERAL AWARD DATED: 10.03.2020 PASSED BY THE R-3 AS
PER ANNEXURE=D IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN PROPERTY BEARING ID NO.
ARP-NGW-1 SY NO. 154/2 KHATHA NO.157, 154/2, 155/1 SITE
NO.1 ASSESSMENT NO. 762/A MEASURING EAST TO WEST 65
SQ FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 35 SQ FEET TO TOTAL 2275
OF SQ FEET WIHTIN THE LIMITS OF BBMP AND ACQUIRED
LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 78.65 SQ METERS SITUATED AT
NAGAVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH
TALUK AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Smt.K.R.Roopa, learned HCGP accepts notice for

respondent No.1.

Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel accepts notice for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Sri.N.N.Harish, learned counsel accepts notice for

respondent No.4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on

record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to

reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and

 3

referring to documents produced by the petitioner, invites

my attention to following decisions of 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;
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.

He therefore submits that the issues in controversy in

the present petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid

decisions and this petition may also be disposed of in terms

of the above decisions.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record including the earlier

decisions passed by this Court (supra) including

Bhyraiah's case wherein this Court held as under:

 4

"3. The judgment in the aforesaid cognate writ

petition at paragraphs 2 and 3 reads as under:-
2. The learned High Court Government
Pleader and also the learned Panel counsel for the
respondent-KIADB are broadly in agreement with the
fact matrix of this writ petition matches with that in
W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed of
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 16.09.2016 . The paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
decision passed in W.P.No.39611-39612/2016 (LA-
KIADB) reads as under:-
“2. Section 29(2) of ‘KIAD Act’, provides
for determination of compensation by way of
agreement. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to such
a consideration since it is stated that by agreement,
petitioners would be entitled to a better price as
compensation instead of a determination by way of a
general award. In addition, it is stated that there would
be a finality to the acquisition proceedings and also for
settlement of compensation since petitioners would be
disentitled to challenge the same and to seek for
higher market value/compensation. Therefore, there is
a need to interfere with the general award at
Annexure-F in so far as petitioners are concerned.
3. In the circumstances, these petitions
are allowed. General award at Annexure-F insofar as
it relates to petitioners, is quashed. A direction shall
ensue to the third respondent-Special Land
Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to consider the case of the
petitioners for determination of compensation by way
 5

of agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, to

be complied with as expeditiously as possible within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. It is made clear that this order is applicable if
there is no dispute to title to the immovable property
acquired and if there is one, then the general award in
so far as petitioners are concerned will stand
restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the
petitioners. The third respondent is permitted to
withdraw the award amount in relation to the aforesaid
land, if deposited in the Civil Court. No costs.”

3. There is an assurance from the side of

the respondent-Government and the respondent KIADB
that petitioner’s representation shall be considered in
terms of paragraphs-2 and 3 of the decision cited above
for treating the said acquisition as the one made with
the consent of the land owner for the purpose of
payment of compensation under Section 29(2) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 within
a reasonable period.”

4. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court

as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I

am of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to

be disposed of in terms of the earlier decisions of this Court

(supra).
 6

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER
(i) The impugned general award at Annexure-‘D’
dated 10.03.2020 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby
quashed insofar as it relates to subject land of the
petitioner.

(ii) The respondents are directed to determine

and pay the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and
pass award within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) It is made clear that in the event, if there is a
title dispute with regard to the subject land the general
award at Annexure-‘D' which has been quashed by this
Court would revive.

(iv) It is directed that before considering the claim of

the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 as stated supra,
respondents shall issue notice and hear Prashanth H.M.
and Shruthi - plaintiffs in O.S.No.5603/2019, who were
also the objectors in the general award at Annexure-D
dated 10.03.2020.

Subject to the above directions, petition stands disposed

of.

Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds.

Page No.6 is replaced and retyped vide Court order dated: 30.11.2020.