01Facts
The petitioners claimed ownership of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 42/1 at Pemmanahalli Village, acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), following notifications under Section 28(1) in 2006 and 2007.
p. 2The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award on 21 December 2016 and deposited compensation before the competent court.
p. 2The petitioners sought to quash the award and obtain developed land in lieu of monetary compensation, relying on a Government Order dated 23 February 2021 providing for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed land per acre.
pp. 3–4They also referred to a similar order in W.P. No. 3655/2026.
pp. 3–5The KIADB did not dispute the Government Order and stated that it would consider an appropriate representation.
pp. 2–502Issues
i.1. Whether the general award dated 21 December 2016 should be quashed in light of the petitioners’ request to receive developed land instead of monetary compensation
pp. 2–5ii.2. Whether the KIADB should consider the petitioners’ request for a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, providing developed land at the rate stated in the Government Order
pp. 2–503Law Applied
Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act provides the statutory basis for notifying land for acquisition for industrial development, while Section 29(2) concerns an award by consent.
p. 2The Government Order dated 23 February 2021, as described to the Court, provides for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed industrial land per acre in lieu of monetary compensation.
pp. 3–4The Court did not set out a separate interpretation of these provisions or the Government Order; it directed that the KIADB consider a representation in accordance with law.
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 29Section 28
04Reasoning
The petitioners challenged the general award and sought the developed-land option under the Government Order.
pp. 5–7The KIADB did not dispute that the Government Order provided for such an option, but submitted that it would consider an appropriate representation.
pp. 5–7On that basis, the Court quashed the existing award and provided a procedure for the petitioners to seek a consent award, rather than directing the KIADB to allot developed land outright.
pp. 5–7The Court also preserved the respondents’ ability to act according to law if no consensus was reached or objections remained, subject to prior notice to the petitioners.
pp. 5–705Holding
The writ petition was allowed, and the general award dated 21 December 2016 was quashed.
pp. 5–7The petitioners were given 30 days from receipt of the certified copy to submit a representation consenting to an award in exchange for 10,781 sq. ft. of developed land per acre.
pp. 5–7The KIADB must consider the representation within eight weeks of its submission.
pp. 5–7The KIADB may withdraw any amount deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the quashed award.
pp. 5–7If no agreement is reached or objections remain unresolved, the respondents may take action in accordance with law, but only after notifying the petitioners.
pp. 5–7Original Court PDF
SRI. G. PARAMESHvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
