Allowed

N.Jayaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/3859/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a general award under Sections 29(1) and 23 of the KIAD Act, as the underlying civil suit regarding land title was disposed of without a pending appeal, enabling the petitioners to claim consent compensation.

What did the court decide?

The general award dated 21.09.2020 was quashed and respondents directed to consider the petitioners' representation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within 8 weeks.

N.Jayaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3859 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

N.JAYARAJU S/O K. R. NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.260, 19TH CROSS KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMANNAGAR BENGALURU 560 093.

¶10

SRI. G. RAJAPPA REDDY S/O. GURU REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. NO.4, 11TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMANNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 093.

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

R. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. B.S. RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.233, DODDANEKKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI KASHINATH J. D., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶17

¶18

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

¶20

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD # 14/3 II FLOOR, R. P. BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001

¶22

REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶23

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO RAIL PROJECT) I FLOOR, R P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 56 0001.

¶24

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD REGD. OFFICE : BMTC COMPLEX 3RD FLOOR, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560 027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, A.G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NOS.2 & 3; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 21.09.2020 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS IN PROPERTY BEARING KRPD-AD-14/KHATA NO.248 IN SY.NO.76 SITUATED AT B.NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K R

¶28

¶29

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶30

PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND NOW WITHIN THE LIMITS OF K.R.PURAM TALUK AND ALSO WITHIN THE LIMITS OF BBMP WARD NO.56 AND THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED PROPERTY TO AN EXTENT OF 497.23 SQ METERS AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

i. "Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the general award dated: 21.09.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 vide bearing order No.KIADB/METRO/BhuSva/KRPD-AD-14/2020-21 as per Annexure - C in so far as it relates to the property of the petitioners in Property bearing KRPD-AD-14/Khata No.248 in Sy.No.76 situated at B. Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobali, Bangalore East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and Now within the limits of K.R.Puram Taluk and also within the limits of BBMP ward No.56 and the petitioners acquired property to an extant of 497.23 sq. meter

¶35

¶36

ii. Issue any suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner as per Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act for payment of compensation by way of consent agreement in respect of the petitioner's in so far as it relates to the property of the petitioner in Property bearing KRPD-AD-14/Khata No.248 in Sy.No.76 situated at B.Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobali, Bangalore East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and now within the limits of K.R.Puram Taluk and also within the limits of BBMP ward No.56 and the petitioners acquired property to an extant of 497.23 sq. meter to meet the interest of justice.

¶37

iii. issue any other orders or directions as deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the interest of justice."

¶38

¶39

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶40

The petitioners claim to be the owners of 497.23 Sq. Mtrs. bearing No.76, Khatha No.248 situated at Andhra Colony Main Road, B. Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The said land has been acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ('KIADB' for short) for the purpose of the construction of metro rail. A general award came to be passed on 21.09.2020 by respondent No.3-KIADB on the basis of the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.26635/2007.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said suit in O.S.No.26635/2007 has been dismissed and no appeal has been filed in relation thereto.

¶42

The contention of the petitioners is that since there is no dispute which is now pending insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIAD Act' for short) to arrive at mutually agreeable compensation for the land of the petitioners which has

¶43

¶44

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶45

been acquired. In this background, the aforesaid reliefs

¶46

have been sought for.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the suit has been disposed of and no appeal has been filed. In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶48

: ORDER :

¶49

a) Writ petition is allowed.

¶50

b) Certiorari is issued. The general award dated 21.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 vide order No.KIADB/METRO/BhuSva/KRPD-AD-14/ 2020-21 at annexure – C is hereby quashed.

¶51

c) The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶52

d) In the event that there are any claims raised as regards the land of the petitioners, the general award would come back into force.

¶53

¶54

WP No. 3859 of 2022

¶55

e) In view of disposal of the main petition,

¶56

I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration

¶57

and the same is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

KTY

N.Jayaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Jayaraju 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

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

Peregrine Guarding Private Limited Vs Nitesh Property Management Private Limited

Smt. a Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraju Vs Deputy Commissioner