General acquisition award quashed, permitting landowner to seek developed land in lieu of monetary compensation.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 30 guntas in Sy. No. 10/6, Billinakote Village, acquired for an industrial estate under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

He contended that the authorities passed a general award dated 17 January 2013 without issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, and deposited compensation in the competent court.

He sought to have the award quashed and to be considered for developed land in lieu of monetary compensation under a Government Order dated 23 February 2021.

The respondents did not dispute the cited Government Order or a coordinate Bench’s order in W.P. No. 3655 of 2026, and stated that they would consider an appropriate representation.

Whether the general award dated 17 January 2013 concerning the petitioner’s land should be quashed in light of his claim that he was not given notice or an opportunity to consent to an award.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to seek a consent award providing developed land in lieu of monetary compensation under the Government Order dated 23 February 2021.

The Court referred to Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act in connection with the petitioner’s allegation that notice and an opportunity to consent had not been provided.

It also considered the Government Order dated 23 February 2021 and the coordinate Bench’s order in W.P. No. 3655 of 2026, dated 6 February 2026, concerning a request for developed land in lieu of monetary compensation.

The Court did not set out a broader legal test; it directed consideration of a fresh representation and made the award’s status conditional on whether agreement could be reached.

The Court recorded the petitioner’s claim of lack of notice and his request for developed land, as well as the respondents’ willingness to consider an appropriate representation.

The respondents did not dispute the coordinate Bench’s order or the Government Order relied upon by the petitioner.

In view of those submissions, the Court quashed the existing general award and gave the petitioner 30 days to submit a representation consenting to an award in the form of developed land.

It left the ultimate consideration to the KIADB, subject to a deadline and the possibility that the general award would be restored if no consensus emerged or objections remained unresolved.

The petitioner may submit a fresh representation within 30 days of receiving the certified order; the KIADB must consider it within eight weeks of submission.

The KIADB may withdraw any amount deposited before the Civil Court.

If no agreement is reached on developed land, or unresolved objections remain, the general award shall stand restored, and the respondents must take further action in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner.