Partly allowed

Smt Anuradha Bharath v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022WP/28656/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the petitioners, established as absolute owners of acquired land, are entitled to compensation under the relevant acquisition enactment. The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award regarding the petitioners' land claims.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the petitioners' claim regarding their lands and pass a necessary award thereon after following due procedure.

Smt Anuradha Bharath Vs Karnataka Industrial Area… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28656 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ANURADHA BHARATH W/O VISHNU BHARATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT # 450,7^TH MAIN ROAD 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011

¶9

SRI. CHETHAN BHARATH S/O VISHNU BHARATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT # 450,7^TH MAIN ROAD 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN (KIADB), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 009

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 009

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

¶18

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶19

NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LTD NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE MIDFORD GARDEN OFF M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, BENGALURU BEARING NO.LAQ/SR/10 (18)/1998-99, LAQ/SR/10(17)/1998-99 DATED 28.10.2016 AT ANNEXURES-G & H AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF KIADB ACT, BEARING NO.CI 166 SPQ 2006, DATED 14.6.2007 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶26

a. Issue writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned notice issued by third respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bengaluru bearing NO.LAQ/SR/10 (18)/1998-99, LAQ/SR/10(17)/1998-99 dated 28.10.2016 at Annexures-G & H and notification issued by third respondent under section 28(4) of KIADB Act, bearing NO.CI 166 SPQ 2006, dated 14.6.2007 at Annexure-F.

¶27

b. Call for records from the respondents pertaining to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners lands and quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

¶28

¶29

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶30

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Notified under Annexure-E & F.

¶31

c. If this hon’ble court feels that the notification cannot be quashed for any reasons prevailed under the circumstances of the case, pleased to direct the respondent authority to make the award under new enactment Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pay the compensation to the to the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶32

d. Pleased to pass any other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court feels deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of land in Sy.No. 60/2 measuring 6 acres 23 guntas, Sy.No.58/1 measuring 1 acre 14 and Sy.No 1 acre 20 guntas, in all measuring 10 acres 3 guntas situated at B.M.Kaval village, Kengeri, Bangalore South taluk, acquired under registered sale deed dated 10.10.1994, 2.07.2001 and 4.07.2001.

¶34

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.Mahesha, is that the land of the petitioners came to be acquired by issuance of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka

¶35

¶36

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶37

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ['KIAD Act' for short] on 19.12.1998. Subsequently final notification under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act came to be issued on 14.06.2006, despite which there is no compensation which has been paid in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has issued notices to the respondent enclosing documents but no action has been taken as regards 5 acres 18 guntas of land acquired from and out of the aforesaid lands belonging to the Petitioner.

¶38

In that background, the petitioner is before this court seeking aforesaid reliefs.

¶39

At the outset Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not be pressing prayer (b), hence, prayer (b) is deleted.

¶40

Sri.Murugesh Charati, learned Special counsel for the State would submit that insofar as the land in Sy.No.58 is concerned, the State had acquired 3

¶41

¶42

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶43

acres 6 guntas of land of which 2 gunats is karab, in respect thereof compensation as regards 2 acres 37 guntas has been paid to one Mr.Rudregowda and as such, the award was rendered in respect of balance 7 guntas. This being so, on account of the fact that Sri.Rudregowda had already collected compensation

¶44

for 2 acres 37 guntas. Sri.Charati submits that merely because an award has not been passed does not mean that the land has not been acquired. The acquisition being complete on 28(4) notification being issued, the land covered under the said notification is vested with the State government as regards which compensation has been collected by the aforesaid Sri.Ruderegowda. He therefore submits that if at all the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner can file necessary proceedings by filing necessary application for compensation and if at all the petitioner is not happy with the same, he can always ask for enhancement.

¶45

¶46

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶47

Sri.Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4 adopts the submissions made by Sri.M.V.Charati, learned Special counsel.

¶48

Heard Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.V.Charati, learned Special counsel for the State and Sri.Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused papers.

¶49

There is no dispute that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired by the State by invoking the provisions of KIADB Act. On such acquisition being complete, it is but required that necessary compensation is paid to the land loser. Merely because someone else has received the compensation would not be a ground to deny the land owner, the benefits of the compensation so long as the land owner is able to establish that he is in fact a land owner by producing documentary proof thereof.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶52

Even in the event of the acquiring authority having

¶53

released compensation to a person who was not entitled, the same would not come in the way of acquiring authority to make payment of compensation to true and lawful owner and thereafter recover monies from the person who has collected the compensation wrongfully.

¶54

In view of the above, the land having been acquired being established, it would be required for the acquiring authority to make payment of compensation to the petitioners as per the relevant and applicable enactment. Hence, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The petition is partly allowed.

¶57

ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners as regards the lands belonging to the petitioners and pass necessary award thereon after following due procedure.

¶58

¶59

WP No. 28656 of 2017

¶60

Needless to state that liberty is reserved to the

¶61

petitioner to agitate any claim for enhancement

¶62

of compensation.

¶63

Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Smt Anuradha Bharath v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anuradha Bharath v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

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

Iti Limited Vs Alphion Corporation

Mr K Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs Mr Salim Baig

Sri. B. R. Nagaraj Vs Sri. Chandra

Smt Aruna Kannur Vs the State of Karnataka by

Rakshith Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Sharadhamma Vs the State of Karnataka