Landowners are entitled to seek compensation through a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, and a General Award may be quashed to facilitate such an amicable settlement between the parties.

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED GENERAL AWARD DTD 09.10.2023, BEARING NO.KIADB.LAQ,1241-2324 PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNX-D. INSOFAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC.,

THIS 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.

Sri. Vasantha, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari/Order of similar nature, quashing the impugned General Award dated 09.10.2023, bearing No.KIADB. LAQ.1241:2023-24 passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-D so far as petitioners concern only.

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus/order of similar nature, directing the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner as per the provision of 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

iii) Issue any such writ/order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.85/P17 measuring 04 Acres 18 Guntas, situated at Mindahalli village, Malur Taluk, Kolar. The said land has been acquired by the respondents for the formation of industrial area. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) has passed a general award and being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are 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).

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3- KIADB submits that if the petitioners are 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.

The submission is placed on record.

Under identical circumstances, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri V. Rudranagaraju¹W.P. No.22495/2023 D.D. 30.10.2023 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 writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the General Award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ No.1203/2022-23 dated 27.12.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in respect of land bearing Sy.no.40/7 measuring 0-12.08 guntas, situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagoundlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District of petitioner is concerned, which is produced at Annexure-C;

(ii) Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and etc.

2. Sri Omkara Murthy G & Sri M.S. Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was absolute owner of land bearing Sy.no.40/7, measuring of 12.08 guntas situated at Hadihosahalli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of which respondent - authorities had initiated acquisition proceedings for Multi Modal Logistics Park project.

3. It was submitted that petitioner had no objection for acquisition of land by respondents - KIADB, but without issuing notice and granting opportunity to petitioner to avail compensation under consent award General Award, was passed. Since compensation under consent award was higher than under General Award, de