Allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Areas v. Smt Razia Begum

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021WP/13139/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's Writ Petition setting aside an award by the Reference Court for violating principles of natural justice by excluding the beneficiary. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after directing a partial deposit of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Set-aside of award LAC No.16/2014; remittal for fresh consideration; direction to deposit Rs.20 lakhs.

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Vs Smt Razia Begum — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13139/2018 (LA – KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, No.49, 4^th floor, Khanija Bhavan East Wing, Race Course Road Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Secretary

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Smt.Razia Begum

¶12

Since deceased by her Lrs.,

¶13

1(a) Sri.Mohammed Shafiq Arshad S/o Late M.Rahamathulla Khan Aged about 64 years

¶14

1(b) Smt.Annesha Begum D/o Late M.Rahamathulla Khan Aged about 60 years

¶15

1(c) Smt.Amira Begum D/o Late M.Rahamathulla Khan Aged about 58 years

¶16

¶17

1(d) Smt.Asifa Begum D/o Late M.Rahamathulla Khan Aged about 55 years

¶18

1(e) Sri.Mohammed Shafiq Ahmed S/o Late M.Rahamathulla Khan Aged about 52 years

¶19

All are residing at # 351, 12^th Cross, 2^nd Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560011.

¶20

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bengaluru International Airport, No.14/3, 2^nd floor, R.P. Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶21

Presently The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, 5^th floor, Khanija Bhavan Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶22

…Respondents

¶23

(By Sri.B.N.Jayadeva, Advocate for R1 (a to e); Sri.Vijay Kumar A Patil, Advocate for R2)

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside judgment and award dated 11.11.2014 passed in LAC No.16/2014 at Annexure-C passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli and etc.,

¶25

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner – KIADB has challenged the award dated 11.11.2014 passed in LAC No.16/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli.

¶29

The only contention of the petitioner is that

¶30

the award is contrary to the provisions of Sections 3(b) and 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that without notice to the petitioner, who is a beneficiary and “person interested” in the acquisition and also insofar as the satisfaction of the decreetal amount is concerned, notice ought to have been ordered to the petitioner in the proceedings impugned herein.

¶31

Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is also an interested party to the proceedings under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the

¶32

¶33

final order passed would affect the interest of the petitioner.

¶34

Taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.55485/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed consideration had set-aside the proceedings concluding that the beneficiary is entitled to participate as a party in the proceedings such as those impugned herein, the present impugned award is also liable to be set-aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration and to be disposed of after providing an opportunity of participation of the beneficiary of the acquisition, within a period not later than four months from the date of release of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Reference Court on 22.03.2021.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1

¶36

submits that it would meet the interest of justice if the

¶37

¶38

beneficiary is directed to deposit 50% of the compensation amount as it was determined in the impugned judgment subject to a fresh order being passed.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further undertakes that necessary indemnity would be furnished before the Reference Court.

¶40

Taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.47045/2018 and also noticing the nature of proceedings upon remand, it would meet the interest of justice if the petitioner would deposit 50% of the amount payable under the impugned award that has now been set-aside within a period of eight weeks.

¶41

The respondents are at liberty to move an application seeking release of the amount in accordance with law, which the reference Court would consider at the earliest.

¶42

¶43

In terms of the directions passed in W.P.No.47045/2018, accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The award passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.16/2014 dated 11.11.2014 is set-aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The parties to appear without further notice on 22.03.2021 and proceedings to be concluded thereafter within a period not later than six months.

¶44

It is clarified that the evidence and pleadings on records which are recorded till date, would be taken note of while considering the matter afresh.

¶45

Parties are also at liberty to lead any fresh evidence, if so required.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

NBM

SSDYJ:

22.02.2021

WP.No.13139/2018

ORDERS FOR BEING SPOKEN TO

¶53

After the matter was disposed of, memo for being spoken to has been moved and it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that while following the order passed in W.P.No.47045/2018, the direction to deposit 50% of the amount payable in impugned award that has been set aside needs to be clarified as the proceedings in LAC No.16/2014 is yet to be finalized and also that the amount of 50% should be restricted to Rs.20 lakhs.

¶54

The first two paragraphs of paragraph 7 reads as hereunder:

¶55

"Taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.47045/2018 and also noticing the nature of proceedings upon remand, it would meet the interest of justice if the petitioner would deposit 50% of the amount payable under the impugned award that has now been set-aside within a period of eight weeks.

¶56

¶57

The respondents are at liberty to move an application seeking release of the amount in accordance with law, which the reference Court would consider at the earliest."

¶58

Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above portion of paragraph 7 to be substituted by the following paragraphs:

¶59

"Taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.47045/2018 but keeping in mind that the proceedings in LAC No.16/2014 have not attained finality, to meet the ends of justice an amount of Rs.20 lakhs is directed to be deposited before the Reference Court in LAC No.16/2014 within a period of eight weeks.

¶60

The respondents are at liberty for seeking release of deposited amount by filing an application in accordance with law before the Reference Court and the Reference Court would consider the same in accordance with law while making it clear that no definitive opinion is expressed as regards said release.

¶61

All contentions are kept open."

¶62

¶63

Accordingly, the order dated 08.02.2021 is to be read subject to the modification as made in this order.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

The Karnataka Industrial Areas v. Smt Razia Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Industrial Areas v. Smt Razia Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Shashikumar Vs M/S Vsan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Sln Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

M/S Marquis Associates Vs Smt Asha Sethi

Mr Vincent Richard Pinto Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. Joseph Thyagaraj Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka