Karnataka HC Quashes KIADB Award, Lets Landowner Seek Developed Industrial Land Instead Of Cash Compensation

The petitioner claimed ownership of five guntas in Sy. No. 97, Honnenahalli Village, acquired under notifications issued pursuant to Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act).

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award on 9 June 2015 and deposited compensation in court.

The petitioner contended that a Government Order dated 23 February 2021 provided for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed land per acre in lieu of monetary compensation, and sought to have the award quashed and a consent award made on that basis.

The KIADB did not dispute the Government Order and submitted that it would consider an appropriate representation from the petitioner.

Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act was invoked as the provision for making an award by consent.

The Court also considered the Government Order dated 23 February 2021, which provided for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed industrial land per acre in lieu of monetary compensation.

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a broader legal test; it directs the KIADB to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

The Court noted the petitioner’s request for developed land in lieu of compensation and the KIADB’s non-dispute of the Government Order, together with its undertaking to consider an appropriate representation.

It did not determine that the petitioner was automatically entitled to developed land or direct that such land be allotted.

Instead, it quashed the existing award and left the question of a consent award for the KIADB’s consideration, subject to the petitioner submitting a representation and any unresolved objections being addressed in accordance with law.

The petitioner was granted 30 days from receipt of the certified order to submit a representation consenting to an award in developed land; the KIADB must consider it within eight weeks of submission.

The KIADB was permitted to withdraw any compensation deposited in court.

If no consensus is reached, or objections remain unresolved, the respondents must take appropriate action in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner.