Allowed

Sri Mariyanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2022WP/3194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a compensation award of Rs.3,25,000 per acre for acquired land. The court quashed the impugned award, permitted withdrawal of deposited funds to a Civil Court pending a title dispute, and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to consider an agreement under the KIAD Act if the petitioners succeed in the pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing the award dated 11.05.2020 fixing compensation at Rs.3,25,000 per acre; directions to Respondent No.2 to consider agreement under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act pending resolutio

Sri Mariyanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3194 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MARIYANNA

¶10

S/O LATE SANNADYAMANNA

¶11

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶12

A. SRI. RANGANNA

¶13

S/O LATE MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

B. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶15

C. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶16

D. SRI. PANDURANGAIAH S/O LATE MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶17

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶19

PETITIONERS NO.1 (A) TO (D) AND 2 ARE R/AT KOLADAPPALESHWARA TEMPLE STREET NEAR ARALIMARA, SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132

¶20

SRI. BYRANNA S/O LATE SANNADYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶21

¶22

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶23

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶24

PETITIONERS NO.3 AND 4 R/AT KOLADAPPALESHWARA TEMPLE STREET, NEAR ARALIMARA SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132

¶25

SRI. MAHADEVA S/O LATE SANNADYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶26

SMT. ERAMMA W/O MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶27

PETITIONERS NO.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.5, 9^TH A CROSS MARITHI NILAYA, BEHIND SHUCHI SAGAR HOTEL LAGGERE MAIN ROAD LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058

¶28

SRI. THOREYANNA S/O LATE SANNADYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶29

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O THOREYANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶30

SRI. PANDURANGAPPA S/O LATE SANADYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶31

SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA W/O PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶32

PETITIONERS NO.7 TO 10 ARE R/AT KOLADAPPALESHWARA TEMPLE STREET

¶33

¶34

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶35

NEAR ARALIMARA, SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132

¶36

…PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR.D.K, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKASA SOUDJHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶40

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1^ST FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWERS NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE, B.H.ROAD TUMAKURU

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA.K.R, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 11.05.2020 IN CASE NO.VI.BHU.SWA.A/KIADB/THU./2019-20 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT-THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1^ST FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWERS, NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE, B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU, FIXING THE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.3,25,000/- PER ACRE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.82, MEASURING 5 ACRES 27 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MUDIGERE KAVAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, BELONGED TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶49

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of a writ, quashing the impugned award dated 11.05.2020 in case No.VI.BHU.SWA.A/ KIADB/THU./2019-20 passed by the 2^nd respondentthe Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, 1^st Floor, Maruthi Towers, next to SIT College, B.H.Road, Tumakuru, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, belonged to the petitioners vide Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶50

b. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to fix the compensation in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, as per section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶51

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.

¶52

c. Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of the writ, quashing the Preliminary Notification dated 24.04.2010 in No.CI 332 SPQ 2010 issued under section 18(3)(1) of the KIADB, Act so far as the land bearing Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, shown at printed page No.42 of the said notification so far as petitioners are concerned, produces at AnnexureB to the Writ petition and also that of the Final Notification dated 19.08.2010 in No.CI 407 SPQ 2010 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act so far as the land bearing Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, situated at Mudigere Kaval Village,

¶53

¶54

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶55

Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, shown at Sl.No.157 so far as petitioners are concerned produced at Annexure-C to the Writ Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶56

d. Direct the respondents to Award a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, as per the order dated 18.11.2019 in W.P. No.50801/2019 (LA-KIADB) produced at Annexure-J to the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

e. Pass such other orders, as the petitioners are entitled to the in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

¶58

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.82 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas situated at Mudigere Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. The said land having been acquired, compensation amount has been deposited in the Civil Court.

¶59

The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners also have a claim over the property and the compensation awarded is at a lower rate inasmuch as adjacent lands have been awarded with a higher

¶60

¶61

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶62

compensation. In this regard, the petitioners rely upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.11244/2019 dated 17.02.2020 to contend that the petitioners’ case would have to be considered in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, ‘KIAD Act’) and the general award dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 is not proper. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the compensation amount is required to be transferred to the Reference Court for disbursal after dispute between the petitioners and other claimants in O.S.No.22/2011 which is pending before this Court in RFA No.1747/2020 is resolved.

¶63

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The Writ Petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued.

¶66

ii. The general award dated 11.05.2020 in case No.Vi.Bhu.Swa.A/KIADB/Thu/2019-20 passed by

¶67

¶68

WP No.3194 of 2022

¶69

respondent No.2 at Annexure-E is hereby

¶70

quashed.

¶71

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the request of the petitioners for entering into an agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act after the dispute in RFA No.1747/2020 is resolved, in the event of petitioner being successful in those proceedings.

¶72

iv. It is made clear that in the event of dispute being raised as regards the title of the petitioners before disbursal, the general award dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 will stand revived.

¶73

v. Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before this Court for depositing the same before the Civil Court where the suit in O.S.No.22/2011 was instituted.

¶74

Prs*

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Mariyanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mariyanna 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

M/S Greenfinch Team Management Vs M/S Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Official Liquidator of Vs State Bank of India

The Official Liquidator of Vs Nil

Anil Kumar Kengeri Shivagangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ummai Hani Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O Late H S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner