Disposed

Sri K Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022WP/3821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an award for land acquisition. It directed the KIADB to consider the petitioner's request for land allotment in lieu of compensation upon proof that the deposit was solely due to his insistence on land, not a rival title claim, setting timelines for both parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed KIADB to consider petitioner's representation for land allotment in lieu of compensation within eight weeks if no rival claim exists.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3821/2021 (LA KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI K RAGHAVENDRA S/O P KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BANASHANKARI BADAVANE 3^RD CROSS, PAVAGADA-561202 TUMKURU

¶8

.... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. KALPANA P V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GROUND FLOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 01 REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.

¶12

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.45, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPT. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶13

¶14

3. THE SPECIAL LAO KIADB

¶15

NIMZ, NH-296, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE BATAWADI TUMUKURU-572 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. J. SATISH KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY R-3 IN CASE DATED 11.05.2020 IN SY.NO.165/1 OF MUDIGERE TALUK TUMUKURU DISTRICT MEASURING ONE ACRE AT SL.NO.151 PARA 25 IN SO FAR THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.165/1 of Mudigere Taluk, Tumakuru District, has impugned the award dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure-A) with a prayer for a direction to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for

¶21

¶22

short, ‘ the KIADB ’) to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure-B) for allotment of the developed land in lieu of compensation payable.

¶23

Smt. Kalpana P V, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the policy decision vide the Government Order dated 23.02.2021 in No.CI 103 SPQ (E) 2019, it is permissible for the KIADB to allot developed land in lieu of compensation. The impugned award is only because the petitioner did not want compensation and was insisting on developed land. The petitioner therefore has filed representation as per Annexure-B for allotment of developed land.

¶24

Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for the KIADB, does not dispute that in terms of the extent policy as contained in the Government Order dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner would be entitled for

¶25

¶26

allotment of a developed land but in the present case, after the impugned order, the compensation amount has been deposited under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, ‘ the Act of 1894’ ). Generally, the compensation is deposited only because of a rival claim as regards title.

¶27

In rejoinder, Smt. P.V.Kalpana, submits that to the best of her instructions, there is no dispute and the award and the consequential deposit, if any, is only because of the petitioner’s insistence on allotment of a developed land.

¶28

The rival submissions are considered in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner has not received compensation and it is permissible according to the extent policy for allotment of a developed land. If the petitioner can indeed demonstrate to the satisfaction of the concerned from the KIADB that there is no rival

¶29

¶30

claim and the deposit of compensation under Section 31 of Act of 1894 is only because of the insistence on allotment of a developed land, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with certain liberties to the petitioner and the KIADB. Hence, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation, within four [4] weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order with the third respondent – the Special Land Acquisition Officer - enclosing all the documents of title which are currently available with him and the certified copy of this order, with a request for allotment of developed land in terms of the Government order dated 23.02.2021;

¶33

b. The third respondent shall place such representation before the second respondent –

¶34

¶35

the KIADB for appropriate decision on the representation;

¶36

c. It would be needless to observe that if the second respondent is of the opinion that the deposit under Section 31 of the Act of 1894 is not because of the dispute and because of insistence as canvassed before this Court, the second respondent shall take appropriate decision;

¶37

d. The decision as aforesaid on the petitioner’s representation shall be taken within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation;

¶38

e. It must be observed that if the second respondent resolves/decides to allot the developed land in lieu of compensation to the petitioner, the second respondent must be

¶39

¶40

entitled to withdraw the amount deposited under Section 31 of the Act of 1894.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri K Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Raghavendra 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

Sri Manukuppe Chikkavenkataiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Sri Giri Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raviprakash Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Chandramma Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri C Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka