Court permissible review of judgment that quashed General Award under KIAMDA Act. Found that petitioner may not get compensation per Section 29(2). Held writ jurisdiction aims to do practical justice. Recalled judgment and restored writ petition to Board.
Review petition allowed; judgment recalling General Award quashed; writ petition restored to Board.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
REVIEW PETITION NO.338/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.KENCHEGOWDA, S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HARSHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT DATED 15/02/2019 PASSED IN WP NO.5732-5733/2019(LA-KIADB) AND TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND RECALL ITS ORDER DATED 15/02/2019.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The W.P.Nos. 5732-5733/2019 were disposed off
by a common judgment dated 15.02.2019 wherein paragraph No.3 reads as under:
“3. In view of the above, these writ petitions succeed in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing impugned General Award at Annexure-E, dated 31.12.2013, to the extent of the petition land and further, a writ of mandamus issues to treat the acquisition of the land in question as the one made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 for the limited purpose of redetermination and payment of compensation to the land owners in accordance with law.
It is needless to mention that the title vested by virtue of the impugned General Award now quashed remains otherwise in tact with the beneficiaries of acquisition. The terms in W.P.No.52298/2018 (LA-KIADB) apply to these cases also.”
submits that this order would cause enormous financial
loss if construed in the way as KIADB is construing and
3
therefore, the judgment may be recalled and matter may be heard afresh.
4
In view of the above, the review petition is favoured and the judgment in question is recalled. Consequently, writ petition is restored to the Board. Post the same before the Bench having Roster.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC is maintainable to recall the judgment quashing the General Award.
Whether the compensation should be determined in accordance with Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966.
Whether the principle that writ jurisdiction aims to do practical justice rather than maintain constitutional theories mandates restoration of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Davis v. MillsReferred¶33
DAVIS v. MILLS (194) US 451 (1904)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI.KENCHEGOWDA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
