KIADB General Awards Quashed; Authorities Directed to Consider Consent Awards Under Section 29(2)

The petitioner claimed ownership of land measuring 228.34 square metres in Sy. No. 120/1 and 196.50 square metres in Sy. No. 120/2, Yelahanka Village.

The lands were notified for acquisition under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (“KIAD Act”) for the Bengaluru Sub Urban Rail Project; a final notification followed, and possession was taken.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer subsequently made general awards determining compensation, which was ordered to be deposited before the Civil Court.

The petitioner challenged those awards and sought determination of compensation by consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

The respondents did not dispute that the matter was covered by the Court’s earlier decision in W.P. No. 15886/2025.

1. Whether the general awards concerning the petitioner’s acquired lands should be quashed and replaced by consideration of a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

2. Whether the petitioner’s case was covered by the earlier decision in W.P. No. 15886/2025.

Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act provides for determination of compensation by consent award.

The Court relied on its coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 15886/2025, which it treated as covering the issue raised in this petition.

The Court further directed that, if consensus is not reached, or entitlement, apportionment, or objections remain disputed, the general awards would stand revived and the compensation would be redeposited before the competent Civil Court.

The petitioner did not challenge the acquisition notifications, and the respondents accepted that general awards had been made and that the dispute was covered by the coordinate Bench’s decision.

Applying that precedent, the Court quashed the awards insofar as they related to the petitioner’s lands and directed the respondents to consider a consent award under Section 29(2).

It preserved the general awards as a fallback if agreement or resolution of disputes proved impossible.

The impugned general awards concerning both parcels were quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s case and pass a consent award under Section 29(2) within three months of receiving the order.

Any amount deposited with the Civil Court under the awards could be withdrawn.

If consensus was not reached or disputes remained unresolved, the awards would stand revived, the compensation would be redeposited before the competent Civil Court, and the petitioner could seek enhancement in accordance with law.