ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in quashing the Endorsement bearing No.Belgaum/V.Bhoo Swa.A- 2/3763/2023-24 dated 27.03.2024 issued by the 4 th Respondent vide ANNEXURE-A , in the interest of justice and equity. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to pass an award determining a fair, just and reasonable compensation in respect of the land measuring 8 Acres in Sy.No.6, Block No.1, Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore acquired by the Respondents vide Preliminary Notification dated 07.08.2006, and Final Notification dated 26.09.2008 vide ANNEXURE-B having regard to the fact that the compensation was paid after 13 years from the date of vesting the land in the State Government, in the interest of justice and equity. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the Petitioner on compensation amount to be determined by the Respondents from 25.09.2008 the date on which Final Notification was issued and the land was vested in the State Government till 12.01.2021 the compensation @ Rs.62,00,000/- per acre was paid, and further interest on the enhanced compensation, in the interest of justice and equity. (iv) Pass any other order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.” Brief facts: 2. The petitioner's father had been granted 8 acres of land in Survey No.6, Block No.1, Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru, which later came to be acquired under the preliminary notification dated 07.08.2006 and final notification dated 26.09.2008 for the formation of IT Tech Park, Aerospace Park and Hardware Park. The case of the petitioner is that though possession vested in the State under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in 2008, the petitioner was not paid compensation for more than 13 years and finally received only Rs. The case of the petitioner is that though possession vested in the State under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in 2008, the petitioner was not paid compensation for more than 13 years and finally received only Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre on 12.01.2021, that too under protest and without any interest, whereas other similarly placed land losers, pertaining to the same survey number and same notification, were paid Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre as compensation and were also paid at interest 9% and even 12% for the delayed payment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the endorsement dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on the ground that he had entered into a consent award, is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that though an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Government on 24.12.2008, fixing compensation at Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, the said agreement nowhere prohibits or waives the statutory entitlement to interest. The petitioner asserts that the possession of the land was taken by the authorities long prior to the payment of compensation, which was disbursed only in the year 2025, thereby giving rise to a statutory right to interest from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The petitioner further contends that the reasoning adopted in the impugned endorsement is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel points out that in W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected matters, the landowners, who were similarly situated, whose lands were acquired under the same preliminary and final notification and who had also agreed for the same consent amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, were granted interest at 9% per annum by this Court. Despite the petitioner herein being similarly placed, the respondents have granted interest to those landowners while denying the same to the petitioner, without any distinguishing material, thereby resulting in hostile discrimination. 5. It is contended that in W.P. No.47563/2016, this Court directed the respondents to consider and disburse the amount to the petitioner, pursuant to which the compensation was eventually paid in 2021, however, interest was not paid. 5. It is contended that in W.P. No.47563/2016, this Court directed the respondents to consider and disburse the amount to the petitioner, pursuant to which the compensation was eventually paid in 2021, however, interest was not paid. When the petitioner challenged the non-grant of interest in W.P. No.22842/2022, the writ petition was dismissed, nevertheless, in the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner in W.A. No.234/2023, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation regarding interest. The present writ petition has been filed pursuant to such liberty, as the petitioner’s representation has been rejected under Annexure-A only on the ground of the consent award dated 24.12.2008, which according to the petitioner, is not legally tenable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the representation, the petitioner has sought for compensation at the prevailing rate under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (‘2013 Act’ for short) as the award amount was paid in 2021. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition and in support of the statement of objections filed, contends that the petitioner has voluntarily entered into a consent agreement on 24.12.2008 agreeing to accept the compensation at Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, and therefore, cannot now seek any additional benefit, including interest. It is submitted that the consent award binds the petitioner in terms of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, and unless the same is set aside on grounds such as fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, the petitioner is estopped from claiming any sum in excess of the agreed amount. It is submitted that the decision in W.P. No. 51023/2013 and connected matters is not applicable to the present petitioner, as the facts in those writ petitions are distinguishable and cannot be treated as an automatic entitlement. 8. Insofar as the petitioner's claim under 2013, Act is concerned, the respondents assert that such a contention is wholly misconceived. He points out that the petitioner had never challenged the consent award, nor did he, in any of the earlier round of litigation, raise a claim of compensation under 2013, Act. It is thus submitted that the petitioner cannot now reopen the issue of compensation, particularly when the liberty was granted by the Division Bench confined only to the question of interest. It is thus submitted that the petitioner cannot now reopen the issue of compensation, particularly when the liberty was granted by the Division Bench confined only to the question of interest. Learned counsel therefore justifies the endorsement at Annexure-A and contends that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner, despite having entered into a consent award dated 24.12.2008, is entitled to interest on compensation amount from the date of taking possession till the date of payment and whether the petitioner is similarly placed to the landowners in W.P. No.51023/2013 and connected matters, who were granted interest at the rate of 9% despite entering into identical consent agreements?” 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner entered into a consent agreement on 24.12.2008 agreed to receive the compensation at Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre. The possession of the land vested in the State under Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act long prior to payment. The compensation was disbursed only in the year 2021. The consent agreement does not contain any clause explicitly waiving the petitioner's statutory entitlement to interest. 11. The law is well settled that once the possession is taken and the land vested in the State, the interest becomes a statutory incident attached to delayed payment of compensation, irrespective of whether underlining award is by consent. It is not in dispute that in W.P No.51023/2013 and connected matters, the landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same preliminary and final notification, and who also entered into identical consent agreements of Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, were granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum by the respondents. The petitioner stands on the same footing as those landowners. No distinguishing factor is pleaded or demonstrated by the respondents. The only ground for denying interest to the petitioner by the respondent is the consent agreement itself, which is equally applicable to the beneficiaries in W.P. No.51023/2013. The respondents, having paid interest to other similarly situated claimants, cannot selectively deny the same benefit to the petitioner. On parity, the law demands that 9% interest to the petitioner to be also awarded. 12. The petitioner in all the rounds of litigation prior to the present proceedings challenged only the non-grant of interest. The respondents, having paid interest to other similarly situated claimants, cannot selectively deny the same benefit to the petitioner. On parity, the law demands that 9% interest to the petitioner to be also awarded. 12. The petitioner in all the rounds of litigation prior to the present proceedings challenged only the non-grant of interest. He has never questioned the compensation amount or the validity of the consent agreement dated 24.12.2008. This Court, in writ appeal arising out of W.P. No.22842/2022, i.e., W.A. No.234/2023, granted liberty to the petitioner only to file a representation regarding interest and did not open the issue of compensation. A consent award, once acted upon and accepted, cannot be reopened to seek compensation under the 2013, Act, particularly when the petitioner himself confined his legal grievance only to the interest for over a decade. The petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under the 2013, Act. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and another Vs. Akkayamma and others , W.A. No.596/2022 D.D 12.09.2022 (Akkayamma) has held at paragraph No.9 as under: “9. This Court in W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected writ petitions disposed of on 03.04.2014, in almost identical circumstances had observed that the petitioners therein should be paid compensation in terms of the deemed consent award with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. Even in the said case, the title of the lands of the petitioners therein was doubted and the Deputy Commissioner had initiated proceedings in that regard, which was ultimately dropped. The said order was questioned by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation, a Government of Karnataka undertaking before this Court in W.P.No.29066/2011 which was dismissed on 03.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners therein had exercised their option for receiving the compensation in terms of the consent award and a sum of Rs.62 lakhs per acre was assured to them. The said order was questioned by the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation, a Government of Karnataka undertaking before this Court in W.P.No.29066/2011 which was dismissed on 03.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners therein had exercised their option for receiving the compensation in terms of the consent award and a sum of Rs.62 lakhs per acre was assured to them. Inspite of the same, a general award was passed awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per acre and it is under these circumstances, they had approached this Court and the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition observing that the State Government through its competent officer may proceed with the action initiated in accordance with law and should the proceedings result in favour of the petitioners therein, they should be paid compensation in terms of a deemed consent award with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. The said order has undisputedly attained finality. Following the said order passed in W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected cases, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing the appellant-Board to pay interest to the legal representatives of the original petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment on the amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/- paid to Smt. Akkayamma towards compensation of the land in question. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.” 14. The another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2 Vs. Sri S.C. Gokarna and others , MFA No.7804/2023 D.D. 18.09.2025 (Special Land Acquisition Officer), having applied the ratio laid down in Akkayama's case has granted 9% interest from the date of possession. 15. The law is well settled that when the land losers receive compensation belatedly, the interest has to be awarded from the date of possession. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2024 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. iii. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 27.03.2024 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. iii. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, from the date of taking possession of the land until the date of actual payment made in the year 2021. iv. The respondents are directed to compute the interest payable to the petitioner at 9% per annum and disburse the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. v. The claim of the petitioner seeking compensation under 2013, Act is hereby rejected.