Disposed

Sri Siddaveeraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2021WP/3691/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a General Award regarding land acquisition compensation. The Court directed the respondent to consider an agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act given the petitioners' title dispute resolution, though no final direction to reconsider was issued in this order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representation for agreement under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act; liberty to civil court deposit withdrawal; petition disposed off.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3691/2021 (LA – KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Siddaveeraiah, S/o Late Balaiah, Aged about 56 years,

¶9

Smt. Ansuyamma W/o Siddaveeraiah, Aged about 51 years,

¶10

Both are R/o Sorekunte Majare, Bommegowdanapalya, Bellavi Hobli - 572 107. ... Petitioners

¶11

(By Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State of Karnataka Department of Industries and Commerce, Ground Floor, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001. Represented by its Principal Secretary to the Government.

¶14

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

¶15

¶16

No.45, 4^th and 5^th Floors, Khanija Bhavana, Race Course Road, Bengaluru - 560 001. Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶17

The Special LAO, KIADB, NIMZ, N.H.206, Near SIT Main Gate, Batawadi, Tumakuru - 572 103.

¶18

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

¶19

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 respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A and B at Sl.No.71 with respect of land of the petitioner in Sy.No.41(41/P12) of Sorekunte Village, Ballavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and etc.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Sy.No.41(41/P12) of Sorekunte Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk has called in question the general award at Annexure-A while seeking setting aside of the same has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to

¶23

¶24

direct respondent No.3 to pass fresh award under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶25

At the outset, it is to be noted that learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their grievance could be sufficiently addressed if the general award is set aside and compensation would be disbursed in terms of agreement as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the petitioners and other rival claimants has been settled in terms of the compromise entered in O.S.No.326/2008, whereby rights have been given up in favour of petitioner No.2 herein.

¶27

It is submitted that said compromise has been entered into on 28.01.2021. It is submitted that though general award was passed as per Annexure-A at an earlier point of time, the petitioners would receive higher

¶28

¶29

compensation if agreement is reached in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act in terms of the prevailing policy.

¶30

Taking note of the said submission and also noticing that the petitioners are entitled for higher rate of compensation in the event agreement is reached in terms of Section 29(2) as per the prevailing policy, the request of the petitioners deserve consideration. The petitioners are also entitled for benefit of higher compensation as the dispute between the petitioners and the other claimants has been disposed off in terms of the compromise entered into in O.S.No.326/2008, as it would bring to rest all further disputes and lead to removal of obstacles for expeditious execution of the project.

¶31

It is to be noted that in a similar factual matrix

¶32

this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 has observed as follows:

¶33

“Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30^th December 2013, AnnexureA, of the 3^rd respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in

¶34

¶35

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 Sub-section (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 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

¶37

¶38

challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land.

¶39

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 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

Taking note of the above observations, the

¶41

petitioners’ case for disbursal of compensation in terms of agreement to be entered in to under Section 29(2) of the

¶42

Act to be considered by the respondent No.3. The

¶43

¶44

petitioners to file a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today, stating that there are no title disputes or any rival claims as regards to the property of the petitioners in Sy.No.41(41/P12) of Sorekunte Village measuring 21 guntas. Such representation will be disposed of expeditiously within a period not later than three months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioners keeping in light the observations passed in W.P.No.6198/2015.

¶45

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

¶46

Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the

¶47

amount deposited before the Civil Court.

¶48

All necessary steps as envisaged in the observation

¶49

made by this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 to be taken note of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE