Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1707 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.SARDAR SINGH S/O BHAGAVANA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A BAVANAHALLI, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 130.
2. SRI B.D.RAMACHANDRA SINGH S/O B.DEVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A BAVANAHALLI, MALUR SUB-DISTRICT, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 130.
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. SMT.S.G.LAKSHMIBAI W/O B.D.UDAY BHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BAVANAHALLI POST, MALUR TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, BAVANAHALLI, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 130.
4. SMT. B.D.BHUVANESHWARI DEVI D/O DEVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A BAVANAHALLI, MALUR, KOLAR KARNATAKA - 563 130.
5. SRI INDER SINGH K., C/O D.I. KRISHNA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO. 2330, 8 TH CROSS, CHANDRANAGAR KSL L/O BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 078.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUISTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 14/3, 2 ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-1 KIADB, NO. 39, BHARATHIYA SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, SHANTHI GRUHA, 4 TH FLOOR, ARAMANE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI SIDDHARTHA H.M., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS AS PER LETTER DTD 16.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE R3 SLAO ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/2015/2022-23 U/S
29(2) OF THE KIAD ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Compensation for acquired land is a constitutional obligation under Article 300A; delay in payment violates principles of justice, equity, and fairness expected from the State.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Section 29(2) - Compensation for land acquisition - Petitioners sought compensation for land acquired since 2007 but not yet paid. Relying upon prior judgments, the court emphasized that compensation is a constitutional requirement under Article 300A. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 7)
(B) Principles of justice and equity in compensation - Delay in compensation payment violates constitutional rights and principles of fairness expected from the State. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Jurisprudential foundations of compensation - The obligation to pay compensation is a fundamental aspect, ensuring individuals are not dispossessed unjustly. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners owned land acquired under the Act; they claimed no compensation has been paid despite repeated requests and notifications from authorities acknowledging their ownership. On 20.06.1962, land was sold, and ownership transferred through legal proceedings. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to compensation and directed the authorities to process this per the 2013 Act, with additional interest and costs for delays. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The key issue involved whether adequate compensation had been provided for the land acquired from the petitioners, and the legality of delay in its payment. (Paras 4, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failure to pay compensation following land acquisition constitutes a violation of property rights under Article 300A, asserting the State's obligation to act fairly and justly in compensation matters. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Writ Petition allowed in part; compensation to be recalibrated and paid within specified time-frame.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“a) ISSUE a writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioners as per Letter dated 16.09.2022 issued by the Respondent no.3 SLAO (Annexure – E) bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/2015/2022- 23 under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Siddhartha H.M., learned counsel for the impleading applicants.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
On 20.06.1962, one Muniyappa sells the subject property in favour of one Devisingh in terms of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. A suit is then instituted by Muniyappa in O.S.No.17/1963, which comes to be decreed in favour of Devisingh, who had purchased the property. After the death of Devisingh, his family members succeed to the property. On 02.06.2020, a final notification including the petitioners’ land is notified. Respondent No.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer communicates to the petitioners under Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act , 1966 (‘the Act’ for short), with regard to the computation of the compensation and sought certain documents with regard to the land for the purpose of disbursement of the compensation. Accordingly, Tahsildhar submits a report to the Special Land Acquisition Officer detailing the flow of title of the subject property and notes that the petitioners are in possession of the said property. Despite all this, the case of the petitioners is that, no compensation is paid for acquiring their lands.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that despite the finding that the lands of the petitioners are acquired, no compensation is paid till date. He would buttress his submission by contending that there cannot be any delay to pay compensation to the land loser. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment in the case of K.T.PLANTATION (P) LTD., v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2011) 9 SCC 1 , has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
(e) Public purpose is a precondition for deprivation of a person from his property under Article 300-A and the right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in that article and when a person is deprived of his property the State has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose of the legislature and other related factors."
It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board has disbursed compensation to the land loser and the petitioners are similarly situated. To substantiate his submission, he places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of SRI M.V.GURUPRASAD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported inW.P.61426/2016 , disposed on 10.02.2023, wherein, it has held as follows:
“ORDER
The tone for this judgment can be set by adverting to the words of Saint Augustine (354 – 430 A.D.) in his book, The City of God, Volume 1 (426 A.D):
“Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers …?”
2. Petitioners being the owners of lands in question are knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against their acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 09.01.2007 issued under Section 28(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 17.05.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act , 1966.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks voiding of the acquisition on the following grounds that:
(i) His clients were already owners of the subject lands and therefore, their names ought to have figured in the acquisition notifications;
(ii) Pe
