01Facts
The petitioner claimed ownership of 36 guntas in Sy. No. 251 (old Sy. No. 113), Rampur Village, which was acquired under notifications issued pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”).
p. 3After a dispute concerning the land arose, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award dated 12 July 2021 and deposited the compensation before the competent court; the petitioner contended that the award did not account for the option of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation.
pp. 3–4He sought to have the award quashed and to be considered for a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, relying on a Government Order dated 23 February 2021 providing for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed land per acre.
pp. 2, 4–5The KIADB’s counsel did not dispute the Government Order and stated that an appropriate representation would be considered in accordance with law.
p. 502Issues
i.Whether the general award dated 12 July 2021 should be quashed where the petitioner sought consideration for developed land in lieu of monetary compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.
pp. 2–5ii.Whether the petitioner could be permitted to submit a fresh representation seeking a consent award and allotment of developed land under the Government Order dated 23 February 2021.
pp. 4–603Law Applied
Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act provides the statutory basis for notification of land for acquisition, while Section 29(2) was invoked in relation to a consent award.
pp. 3–4The Government Order dated 23 February 2021 provided for allotment of 10,781 sq. ft. of developed industrial land per acre in lieu of monetary compensation; the respondents did not dispute that order.
pp. 4–5The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on a coordinate Bench’s order in W.P. No. 3655 of 2026, which had considered a request for developed land in lieu of compensation.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 29Section 28
04Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s claim that the general award had been made after a dispute arose over the acquired land, notwithstanding his request to be considered for a consent award and the applicable Government Order.
pp. 3–5Since the KIADB did not dispute the Government Order and stated that it would consider an appropriate representation, the Court quashed the general award and allowed the petitioner to seek consideration through a fresh representation.
pp. 5–7The Court left the ultimate decision to the KIADB, subject to consideration in accordance with law and notice to the petitioner if consensus could not be reached or objections remained unresolved.
pp. 5–705Holding
The writ petition was allowed and the general award dated 12 July 2021 was quashed.
p. 6The petitioner was granted 30 days from receipt of the certified order to submit a representation consenting to an award and agreeing to receive 10,781 sq. ft. of developed land per acre in lieu of monetary compensation; the KIADB must consider it within eight weeks of submission.
pp. 6–7The KIADB may withdraw any amount deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to the quashed award.
p. 7If no consensus is reached or objections remain unresolved, the respondents must take appropriate action in accordance with law, after notifying the petitioner.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI DILEEP T PvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
