Allowed

Sri Lingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2021WP/19225/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the General Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court set aside the General Award, quashed it, and directed the SLAO to consider the petitioners' compensation claim under the relevant Act within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned General Award is quashed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the compensation claim under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act within four months.

Sri Lingappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.19225 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. LINGAPPA,

¶8

S/O BALAIAH,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. RAMAIAH, S/O LATE PANDU RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA, S/O LATE PANDU RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE PANDU RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. THAAYAMMA, W/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. BALAKRISHNA, S/O DASAPPA,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶16

SRI JAYARAMU G D., S/O DASAPPA,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶18

BOTH ARE R/AT GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI,

¶19

¶20

TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 128. … PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. MAHESHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶24

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 01.

¶25

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE, TUMKUR - 572 103. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING DATED 26.07.2019 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF LAND SY.NO.35/3 MEASURING 1 ACRE 27 GUNTAS, AND SY.NO.35/4 MEASURING 3 ACRES 02 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT OF PETITIONERS IN CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - C AND ETC.,

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has paid the deficit Court fee.

¶31

Submission is placed on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the parties jointly

¶33

submitted that the matter is covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.14229/2021. In view of the same, the matter is take up for final disposal.

¶34

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

¶35

are that:

¶36

The petitioners are the absolute owners of land bearing Sy.No.35/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and Sy.No.35/4 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas, situated at Gowdanahalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. The petitioners have been in possession of the said land. Respondent No.2 has declared the land of the petitioners and the surrounding land as industrial area and

¶37

¶38

issued a notification under Section 1(3) 3(1) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners have filed objections seeking dropping of the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners under Section 28(3) of the Act. It is contended that respondent No.1 in compliance of the provision of the Act has passed the general award. Hence, this petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶40

and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed the reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14229/2021. The grievance of the petitioners is that, while the General Award passed by the respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer-NIMZ was questioned by some of the landlords, this Court in Smt.Rathnamma Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.31702/2018, by order dated 29.11.2018 has set aside the General Award and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of

¶42

¶43

the KIADB Act, 1966, within a period of two months. Therefore, it is the prayer of the petitioners that similar orders may be passed in this writ petition to set aside the General Award and direct the respondent authorities to consider claim for compensation under Section 29(2) of the Act.

¶44

The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is not controverted at the hands of the respondents.

¶45

Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶46

following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

1. Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

¶49

1. The impugned General award at Annexure-C dated 26.07.2019 passed by respondent No.3 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.35/3 and 35/4 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶50

1. Respondent No.3 (SLAO) is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under

¶51

¶52

Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

1. It is made clear that in the event, if any dispute arises with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the General award at Annexure-C, which has been quashed by this Court would revive.

¶54

1. Liberty is reserved to Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to General award.

¶55

ssb

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Lingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lingappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Dasegowda Vs the Project Director

Smt Hemavathy Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Zafer Iqbal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Varadamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Keshavamurthy K C Vs the State of Karnataka