Dismissed

Sanjeevaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2013WP/32007/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award. Relying on a prior connected judgment that quashed similar awards and directed payment at an agreed negotiated rate under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act, the court dismissed the challenge and ordered compensation as per the agreed rate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by dismissal in terms of the order passed in connected matter W.P.Nos.47750-47752/2012 directing release of amount as per agreed rate.

Sanjeevaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.32007/2013 ( LA-KIADB)

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sanjeevaiah, S/o late Munishamappa, Aged about 77 years, r/o Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. …. Petitioner.

¶7

(By Sri K.N.Shiva Reddy, Adv.)

¶8

And:

¶9

1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB Office-2, No.14/3, 1^st Floor, Maharshi Aravinda Bhavan, CFC Bldg., Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 1.

¶10

2 The Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB, Office No.2, No.14/3, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 1.

¶11

¶12

3 Managing Director, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Ltd., 2^nd Floor at Deputy Commissioner’s Bldg., Near City Civil Court, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore – 9.

¶13

4 The State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary, Commerce & Industries, M.S.Bldg., Bangalore – 1. …. Respondents.

¶14

(By Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Adv. for R1 & R2 Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv. for R3 Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, AGA for R4)

¶15

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award notice dated 27/28.8.2012 as per Annexure ‘A’ and general award dated 31.5.2012 as per Annexure ‘B’, etc.

¶17

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court passed the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of

¶20

land bearing Sy.No.1/P measuring 2 acres situated at

¶21

Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The

¶22

said lands have been acquired by the State Government for the

¶23

¶24

benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. It is his further contention that he had agreed to receive compensation at Rs.62 lakhs per acre by agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. He had participated in the meeting convened by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District on 24.12.2008 for determination of compensation by negotiation. A notice dated 19.5.2009 was issued to the petitioner directing production of title deeds and other documents for offering compensation at the rate of Rs.62 lakhs per acre and that he had accepted the said offer. However, the first respondent has passed a general award as per Annexure ‘B’ dated 31.5.2012 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,28,600/- per acre. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said general award at Annexure ‘B’ and the award notice at Annexure ‘A’.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

¶27

It is not in dispute that in W.P.Nos.47750-47752/2012 and other connected matters disposed of on 21.02.2013 in respect of the lands acquired under the same notification, this Court has quashed the general award with a direction to release the amount as per the agreed rate under Section 29(2) of the Act. Similar order needs to be passed in this case. Therefore, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.47750-47752/2012 and other connected matters disposed of on 21.02.2013. Since the compensation is being paid by consent, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest except the compensation determined under Section 29(2) of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE.

¶29

BMM/-

Sanjeevaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevaiah v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thirumala Educational Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyappa Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sampangappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Chennamma Vs Commissioner Hassan Urban Development Authority

Ancita Jose Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagan Sandeep B Vs the State of Karnataka