Mr. Panduranga Srinivasa Reddy v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO.28264 OF 2025 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

MR. PANDURANGA SRINIVASA REDDY S/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21, SINDHURAM, A.Y.R. ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI EAST, BENGALURU-560051. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), #14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (K-RIDE), I FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:54758( WP(No.(28264(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,, BENGALURU-560001., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,RAJKUMAR,M.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-1;, ,,,,,,SRI,H.L.,PRADEEP,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-2,&,R-3), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE,THE,MINUTES, OF, THE, MEETING, DATED, 01/03/2024, PASSED, BY, THE, PRICE, FIXATION,COMMITTEE,(PRODUCED,IN,ANNEXURE-L);,DIRECT,THE, RESPONDENT, NO.3, TO, FIX, THE, RATE, OF, COMPENSATION, FOR, ACQUISITION, OF, 1078.04, SQ., MTRS, OF, LAND, OF, THE, PETITIONER, AS, PER, THE, MINUTES, OF, THE, MEETING, DATED, 16/05/2025,VIDE,ANNEXURE-Y,AND,ACCORDINGLY,DIRECT,THE, RESPONDENT,NO.3,TO,PAY,THE,BALANCE,AMOUNT,AFTER,FRESH, DETERMINATION,IN,ACCORDANCE,WITH,LAW., , , THIS, PETITION, COMING, ON, FOR, HEARING, –, INTERLOCUTORY, APPLICATION,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,K.S.,HEMALEKHA, , ORAL(ORDER( ( The, petitioner, has, approached, this, Court, calling, in, question, the, action, of, the, respondent, in, relation, to, the, fixation, of, compensation, for, the, land, acquired, under, the, provisions, of, Karnataka, Industrial, Areas, Development, Act,, 1966, ('KIAD, Act', for, short),, and, is, seeking, a, direction, for, reconsideration,of,the,objection,raised,by,the,petitioner,with, respect,to,the,price,fixation,committee.,, (

Brief facts:

¶2The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land which has been acquired for the purpose of Bangaluru Su-urban Railway Project. Pursuant to the preliminary and final notifications issued under KIAD Act, meeting of the price fixation committee was held on 01.03.2024 for fixation of compensation in respect of the land situated at Shetihalli and Maydarahalli Villages, which included the land of the petitioner as well as several other landowners.

¶3In the said meeting, the compensation was fixed uniformly for the lands covered under the acquisition. Aggrieved by the rate so fixed, the petitioner submitted representation contending that the compensation does not reflect the prevailing market value and according to him, his land deserved higher valuation, as the grievance remained unresolved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Contention of the petitioner:

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation fixed on 01.03.2024 is inadequate and

arbitrary. The petitioner's objections highlighting parity, location of land and guideline value was not specifically considered and the petitioner seeks an opportunity for reconsideration of his objections by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Contention of the respondent:

¶5Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the price fixation carried out on 01.03.2024 was duly constituted by a price fixation committee and was applicable to several landowners and not confined to the petitioner alone. The fixation was done in accordance with the statutory framework and prevailing guideline values.

¶6Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court notes that the price fixation impugned in the present petition was undertaken in respect of multiple landowners, including the petitioner and was not confined exclusively to the petitioner's land. The grievance of the

petitioner essentially relates to non-consideration of his objections regarding valuation.

¶7Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for enhancement or parity, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to place an objection afresh before the competent authority. At the same time, in order to maintain certainty in acquisition proceedings, it is necessary to clarify that the price fixed by the fixation committee on 01.03.2024 shall not be disturbed.

¶8The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall examine whether the objections raised by the petitioner are capable of consideration in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereafter. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. The petitioner is at liberty to submit fresh representation/objections before the Special Land

Acquisition Officer within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iii. Upon such representation being submitted, Special Land Acquisition Officer shall examine and consider whether the objections raised by the petitioner are capable of consideration in accordance with law and thereafter pass appropriate orders after affording the opportunity to the petitioner. iv. It is clarified that the price fixed by the price fixation committee in its meeting dated

01.03.2024 shall not be disturbed by virtue of this order. v. Contentions of the parties are kept open.

Pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration.

Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69