Allowed

Smt. Siddagangamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021WP/1352/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a General Award regarding land acquisition, seeking determination of compensation via agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, citing a related precedent where such an approach was allowed in absence of title disputes.

What did the court decide?

General Award dated 26.07.2019 quashed; direction to R3 to consider case for compensation determination under Section 29(2) within 3 months contingent on no title disputes.

Smt. Siddagangamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1352/2021 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

Between :

¶8

Smt. Siddagangamma, W/o C. Nanjaiah, Aged about 67 years.

¶9

Sri C. Nanjaiah, S/o Late Channappa, Aged about 75 years.

¶10

All are residing at Bommegowdanapalya, Bellavi Hobli, Sorekunte Post, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. … Petitioners

¶11

(By Sri Kishan G.S., Advocate)

¶12

And :

¶13

State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.

¶14

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, By its CEO and EM, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Kaneja Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, NIMZ, KIADB, Maruthi Towers, 1^st Floor, Beside SIT, B.H. Road, Tumkur - 572 102. … Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Y.D. Harsha, AGA for R1;

¶18

Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2 and R3)

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the general award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the R-3 in respect of lands bearing Sy. No.41 Block 29 measuring 1 Acre and Sy.No.41/6P1 measuring 2 Acres belonging to the petitioners as per Annexure-H and etc.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are stated to be the owners of Sy. No. 41

¶24

Block 29 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No.41/6P1 measuring 2 acres of Sorekunte Village, Bellavi Hobli. It is stated that the said lands were notified for acquisition under Sections 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). Petitioners submit that notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was also passed. It is further submitted that though they had intended for

¶25

availing of compensation as per the agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act, without affording sufficient

¶26

¶27

opportunity, General Award has been passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶28

Petitioners submit that they have filed the present petition seeking for quashing of the General Award dated 26.07.2019 enclosed at Annexure-H as regards to the properties of petitioners and seek for appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioners and pass award in terms of agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – KIADB submits that KIADB would consider the case of petitioners and petitioners may be directed to file a representation within a period of two weeks stating that there are no rival claims or title disputes as regards to the properties of petitioners in Sy. No. 41 Block 29 and Sy. No.41/6P1 of Sorekunte village, Bellavi Hobli.

¶30

It is noticed that if an agreement is reached under Section 29(2) of the Act, it will be more beneficial to

¶31

¶32

the petitioners. Accordingly, in light of the submission of the petitioners that there are no rival claims nor any title disputes, petition is disposed off by setting aside the General Award at Annexure-H. Respondent No.3 to consider the case of petitioners for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, keeping in mind the observations made in W.P.No.6198/2015. The extract of relevant portion of the order is as follows:

¶33

“Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30^th December 2013, Annexure-A, of the 3^rd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.444 of Cheeluru village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that her claim for determination of compensation ought to be by way of an agreement under Subsection (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’) since willing to the enter into an agreement after having obtained a compromise decree dated 6.12.2014 in O.S.126/2013 whereunder the property in

¶34

¶35

question is declared to be the absolute property of the petitioner.

¶36

2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the ‘KIAD Act’ provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award AnnexureA insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land.

¶37

3. In the result, this petition is allowed. General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. A direction shall ensue to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the ‘KIAD Act’ to be complied

¶38

¶39

with as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 31^st October 2015. It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is no dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved.”

¶40

Petitioners to file a representation to the 3^rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of release of this order stating that there are no title disputes nor any rival claims as regards to the properties of petitioners in Sy. No. 41 Block 29 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No.41/6P1 measuring 2 acres of Sorekunte Village, Bellavi Hobli. Order to be passed by the 3^rd respondent expeditiously within a period not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner keeping in mind the observations passed in W.P. No.6198/2015. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited before the Civil Court.

¶41

¶42

Petition is accordingly disposed off .

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

VP

Smt. Siddagangamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Siddagangamma v. State of Karnataka

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

Puttalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Kenchappa Vs State of Karnataka

R. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rekha H Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer