SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440443

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SMT.RASHMI VASUDEVA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 38168/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 38168 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SMT.RASHMI VASUDEVA REDDY

W/O. K. VASUDEVA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.104, 1ST FLOOR,

NITHYA APPTS, RAMAIAH REDDY LINE,

CKB LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA,

BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 037

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHARAN N.MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Digitally signed by

AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

MAHALAKSHMI B M

BANGALORE-560 001.

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER,

KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39,

BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES

BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

***

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB:LAQ:1810 2020-21 DATED 02.03.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.94/6 MEASURING 1 ACRE 3 ½ GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. Sri H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ:1810:2020-21 dated:

02.03.2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 in respect of land in Sy.No.94/6 measuring 1 Acre 3 ½ Guntas, situated at Mindahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, as per ANNEXURE-D.

ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioners as per section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

iii) Pass such other order, writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs."

4. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by several decisions of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.94/6, measuring 1 Acre 3½ Guntas, situated at Mindahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The said land has been acquired by the respondent-State for the benefit of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing to accept compensation by way of a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act, 1966’ for short).

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 -

KIADB submits that if the petitioner is willing to accept the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, the same will be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law.

8. The submission is placed on record.

9. Under identical circumstances, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri V. Rudranagaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and others (V.Rudranagaraju) had quashed the general award and directed the respondent-Board to consider the representation of the land owner seeking determination of compensation under a consent award in terms of Section

29 (2) of the KIAD Act and has held as under: “This

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top