Sri M P Prabhakar v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40636( WP(No.(19735(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010412562025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RD DATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R.(NATARAJ(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(19735(OF(2025((LA-KIADB)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SRI.,M.P.,PRABHAKAR, S/O,LATE,PILLAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS, R/AT.,MADAPPANAHALLI,VILLAGE,

HESARAGHATTA,HOBLI,, BANGALORE,NORTH,TALUK, BANGALORE,URBAN,DISTRICT-560064, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,CHANDRASHEKAR,SWAMY,K.B.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT,OF,INDUSTRIES,AND,COMMERCE,, REP,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,,

VIDHANA,SOUDHA,,AMBEDKAR,VEEDI,,,Digitally signedtiby BANGALORE-560001., HEMALATHA0J , Location: HIGH0COURT 2., KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,DEVELOPMENT,BOARD, OF REP,BY,ITS,CHIEF,EXECUTIVE,MEMBER,,, KARNATAKA TH 4 ,FLOOR,,KHANIJA,BHAVAN,EAST,WING,,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,,BANGALORE-560001, ,

3., OFFICE,OF,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION-2, KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,DEVELOPMENT,BOARD, B.M.I.C.P.,AND,BANGALORE,RURAL,DISTRICT, STNO.14/3,,CFC,BUILDING,,1 ,FLOOR,, MAHARSHI,ARAVIND,BHAVAN,, NRUPATUNGA,ROAD,,BANGALORE-560001, …RESPONDENTS, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40636( WP(No.(19735(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010412562025( ( ( (BY,SRI.,ADITYA,DIWAKAR,,ADDITIONAL,GOVERNMENT,ADVOCATE, FOR,RESPONDENT,NO.1;, SMT., ANUPARNA, BORDOCOI,, ADVOCATE, FOR, RESPONDENT, NOS.2, AND,3), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.3, TO, CONSIDER, THE, REPRESENTATIONS, OF, THE, PETITIONER, VIDE, ANNEXURES-C, DATED, 24.02.2025, AND, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT,NO.3,TO,PAY,THE,COMPENSATION,AMOUNT,INFAVOUR, OF,THE,PETITIONER,SINCE,THE,PETITIONER,BECOME,THE,OWNER, OF, THE, PROPERTY, ACQUIRED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.3, AS, PER, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 19.02.2025, PASSED, IN, O.S.NO.375/2008, BY, THE, ADDITIONAL, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, JMFC,AT,DEVANAHALLI,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R.,NATARAJ, , ORAL(ORDER( , The, petitioner, has, sought, for, a, writ, in, the, nature, of, mandamus, to, direct, respondent, No.3, to, consider, his, representation,dated,24.02.2025,and,pay,compensation,to,him, in, view, of, the, decree, passed, in, O.S., No.375/2008, by, the, Additional, Senior, Civil, Judge, and, JMFC,, Devanahalli., He, has, also, sought, for, a, direction, to, respondent, No.3, to, pass, a, consent, award, as, provided, under, Section, 29(2), of, the, Karnataka,Industrial,Areas,Development,Act,,1966,(henceforth,

referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short) by quashing the general award bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/2124/2023-24 dated 06.06.2023 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.8 of Chapparadahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.

2.

(i) The petitioner contends that he entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land in Sy. No.8 of Chapparadahalli, measuring 03 acres 1 Gunta. Since the owners resiled from the agreement, he filed a suit in O.S. No.375/2008 for specific performance of the said agreement. In the meanwhile, the owners conveyed the said property through their power of attorney to Mr. Mohamed Asif Jilani. The petitioner impleaded the power of attorney holder of the vendors as well as the subsequent purchaser. In the meanwhile, the subsequent purchaser died and no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs on record. The Trial Court after an enquiry, decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance. It also declared that the sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of the vendors in favour of the subsequent purchaser was not binding on petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner contends that the aforesaid land was acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act and compensation of Rs.74,39,781/- was determined. He contends that since he holds a decree of specific performance, he is entitled to receive the compensation. In this regard he filed a representation dated 24.02.2025 before respondent No.3. He contends that the said representation is not considered and therefore seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the same. Alternatively, he seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to set aside the general award dated 06.06.2023 and pass a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid contentions and prays to issue a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶4A perusal of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.375/2008 would show that the subsequent purchaser was deleted from the array of parties on the ground that he was expired. No steps were taken by the petitioner to implead the legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser. Nonetheless, the

Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit and declared that the sale deed executed in favour of the subsequent purchaser does not bind the plaintiff/petitioner. It is therefore, evident that the judgment obtained by the petitioner is only inter se between the petitioner and his vendors and does not bind the legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser.

¶5In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot compel the respondent Nos.2 and to release the compensation in his favour or seek for a direction to pass a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. Moreover, the legal representatives of the subsequent purchaser are not arrayed as parties in the present petition. Therefore, no effective directions can be issued to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28