Disposed

Sri Rudraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WP/3120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court set aside the general land acquisition award, disposing of the writ petition to direct respondents to pass an award under Section 29(2) of the Act, contingent on no future dispute arising.

What did the court decide?

The impugned general award is set aside. Respondents directed to consider the claim under Section 29(2) of the Act and pass an award within two months.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3120/2021 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Sri Rudraiah, S/o Late Balaiah, Aged about 69 years, R/at Kestur Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District - 572 138. … Petitioner (By Sri Mahesha D., Advocate)

¶8

AND :

¶9

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 01.

¶10

The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, By its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member, Khanija Bhavan, 4th & 5th Floor, Race Course Road, Bangalore - 01.

¶11

The Special Land Acquisition Officer NIMZ, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, I Floor, Maruthi Tower,

¶12

¶13

Near SIT Main Gate, Tumkur - 572 103. … Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Y.D. Harsha, AGA for R1; Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2 & R3)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the general award dated 26.7.2019 passed by the R-3 in respect of the petitioner was the absolute owner of land Sy. No.51 measuring 1-00 Acre situated at Puradakunte Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District of petitioner of concerned which is produced at Annexure-C and etc.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No. 51 measuring 1 acre situated at Puradakunte Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District, has called in question the general award and has sought for quashing of the same with necessary direction to the respondents to consider passing of an award in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short 'the Act').

¶19

Petitioner submits that the amount of

¶20

compensation under the consent award in the event of

¶21

¶22

agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act as per the prevailing scheme is more beneficial than the compensation awarded under the general award. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and other claimants has been resolved by virtue of the compromise entered into with the rival claimants in O.S.No.326/2008, which suit has been disposed off as per the compromise entered into on 28.01.2021. Copy of the said compromise petition is produced at Annexure-E.

¶23

Learned counsel for the KIADB submits that the matter could be disposed off as per law taking note of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and other claimants at Annexure-E.

¶24

4. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) The petition is disposed off .

¶27

ii) The impugned general award at Annexure-C is set aside.

¶28

¶29

iii) Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the Act and pass award within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶30

iv) It is clarified that if there is any dispute with regard to the entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the general award at Annexure-C would revive.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Sri Rudraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rudraiah 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

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

M/S S K Construction Vs the General Manager

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria Vs M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Devamma Vs State of Karnataka

M.C.Raghavanka Vs Union of India