The landowners are entitled to just compensation at current market value when delays in awarding compensation are not due to their actions.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. The present two appeals have been filed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as KIADB), as well as August Ventures Private Limited, who were respondent Nos.2 and 4, respectively before the writ court.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioners filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge with following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing notification bearing No. C1255SPQ2001 (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.”

4. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owner of the property bearing survey No.117/2 measuring 31 guntas, survey No.117/3 measuring 33 guntas, survey No.116 measuring 35 guntas and survey No.117/3 measuring 18.5 guntas, totally 2 acres 37.5 guntas, situated at Amani Bellanduru Khane Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bengaluru.

5. The State Government issued a notification on 10.12.2001 under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as KIAD Act), for acquiring large extent of land, including the aforesaid land for declaring the lands as the industrial area. Thereafter, preliminary notification for acquiring the aforesaid land was issued on 09.02.2004 under Section 281 (1) of the KIAD Act. The final notification came to be issued on 19.12.2005.

6. After issuing the final notification, no award came to be passed in respect of the lands which the petitioners claimed to be the owner. In view thereof, the petitioners had filed writ petition in WP.No.7994/2017 (LA-KIADB) with the prayers as mentioned above. The learned single judge having considered the submissions and pleadings had framed the following issues in paragraph No.9 of the impugned judgment as below:

(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintain the present writ petition?

(ii) Whether in law and on the facts of this case the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 passed by the respondent-SLAO is sustainable?

(iii) Whether petitioners have made out grounds for shifting of date of acquisition for the purpose of determination of compensation from date of issuance of preliminary notification that is 09.02.2004 to the present date?

7. So far as the question No.1 is concerned, learned Single Judge said that the issue, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation is to be decided by Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and the writ court would not determine the said issue as it is not that the issue would be one of the question of fact and the SLAO would be the competent authority to decide the said issue.

8. So far as the sec