Legal authorities must conduct proper inquiries and provide fair compensation during land acquisitions, ensuring all interested parties are notified and allowed to contest.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing notification bearing No. CI255SPQ2001(P) dated 9.2.2004 under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, ANNEXURE B and final notification No.CI:126:SPQ: 2005 dated 19.12.2005 under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act ANNEXURE-D.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing allotment letter bearing No. IADB/HO/Allot/Secy/1540-SUC/16093/ 14-15 dated 10.3.2015 ANNEXURE-Q and the possession certificate bearing No. IADB/DO/-2/2336/2015-16 dated 25.1.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to 4 to hand over possession of item No. 1,2,and 4 of the scheduled properties and direct respondent 2 and 3 to hand over possession of item No. 3 of schedule property.

(ii)(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing General Award dated 05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexure T and U passed by the respondent No.3.

(iii) Grant such other and further relief as just in the interest of justice.

2. Necessary to note that though the Petitioners originally filed the above writ petition seeking quash of preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and the final Notification dated 19.12.2005 as per prayer (i) and (ii) subsequently by an amendment which was allowed on 04.02.2025, the Petitioners have sought quashing of the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexures T and U passed by the respondent No.3. After addressing the arguments a Memo dated 03.04.2025 is filed on behalf of the Petitioners stating that the petitioners would restrict their prayer challenging the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners and would not seek to press the prayers challenging the acquisition. The said memo is taken on record and consequently matter is being adjudicated only to the extent of relief No. (ii)(a).

3. Case of the petitioners is that:

(a) One Sri C. Sridharan was the absolute owner of the property bearing survey number 117/2 measuring 31 guntas, survey number 117/3 measuring 33 guntas, survey number 116 measuring 35 guntas and survey number 117/3 measuring 18.5 gundas, totally measuring 2 acres and 37.5 guntas situated at Amani Bellanduru Khane Village, Vartur Hobli, Bangalore, East Taluk, described more fully in the schedule to the writ petition as item numbers 1 to 4 ( hereinafter referred to “Schedule Property”). That item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule property were converted from agriculture to non-agricultural residential purposes as per the order dated 18.11.1999.

(b) That the respondent No.1 had issued a notification dated 10.12.2001 under Section 3 (1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as KIAD Act), declaring the schedule property as industrial area. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004, under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act. Said Sri C Sridharan had submitted his objection on 25.05.2004 opposing acquisition, contending that he had purchased the schedule property for the commercial purposes of establishment of software technology park and had requested to drop the schedule property from acquisition proceedings. That without providing any opportunity the respondent No.1 had issued final notifi