Remanded

Sri. Balaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2016WP/279/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed a general award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The Court, noting the KIADB was not averse to a consent award and that the petitioner was denied higher compensation, directed the passing of a fresh consent award and

What did the court decide?

General award set-aside; matter remanded to Land Acquisition Officer to pass a consent award; permission for restoring general award if title dispute arises.

Sri. Balaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.279 AND 858 OF 2016

¶7

(LA - KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Shri Balaiah S/o Erakariyappa Aged 75 years R/o Yeladadlu Gollarahatti Kesthur Post, Kora Hobli Tumakuru Tq. & District …PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri M.B. Chandrachooda, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries & Commerce Department M.S.Builidngs, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560 001

¶13

¶14

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer No.14/3, 2^nd Floor, R.P.Building Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru – 560 001

¶15

The Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, No.14/1, Aravinda Bhavana 1^st Floor, Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru – 560 001

¶16

The Special Land Acquisition Officer KIADB, Maruthi Tower B.H.Road, Near SIT Main Gate Tumkur - 572105

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1;

¶19

Shri B.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2-4)

¶20

¶21

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dt.19.11.2013 passed by the R-3 in so far it relates to the land bearing Sy.No.50/P10, measuring 0.34 guntas and Sy.No.50/3, measuring 0.18 guntas situated at Yeladadlu Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Tq., & District vide Annx-C by issue of writ of certiorari. Direct the R-3 & 4 to pass individual award as per Sec.29(2) O the act and to pay the compensation.

¶22

¶23

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petition is disposed of on a short ground namely, the

¶26

petitioner’s land having been acquired by the KIADB under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, compensation payable was to be in accordance with a consent award. However, contrary to the understanding, a general award has been passed, thereby denying the petitioner a larger amount of compensation, and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

The KIADB is not averse to passing a consent award.

¶28

Therefore, the general award passed is set-aside. The matter is remanded to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a consent award. In the event there is any dispute as to the title of

¶29

¶30

the property in question, it would be permissible to restore the general award and reject the claim of the petitioner.

¶31

With that observation, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri. Balaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.C.Shivanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Syed Ameer Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Prestige City Properties Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt.v.G.Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rama Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha B Vs State of Karnataka