Partly allowed

Venkataramana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022WP/5916/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging land acquisition awards under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act. The Court held that awards passed after January 1, 2014, must comply with the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, quashed prior awards, and directed fresh awards to be passed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned award notices and awards; directed respondents to pass fresh awards and pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 within three months.

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

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.5916 OF 2017 C/W

¶7

W.P.No.7980 OF 2017

¶8

C/W W.P.No.8214 OF 2017(LA-KIADB)

¶9

IN W.P.No.5916/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

1 . VENKATARAMANA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARSM, R/AT NO.160, IN SY NO.24, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087

¶12

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶13

1(A) SRI. V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA AGED 50 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO. 161, ( IN SY NO. 24) KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHURU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 087.

¶14

1(B) SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A. NO. 119, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA BELANDUR POST, BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶15

²

¶16

2 . V MUNIYAPPA S/O SHRI VENKATARAMANA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.163, IN SY NO.24, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560087

¶17

3 . SHANKARAPPA S/O SHRI VENKATARAMANA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.159, IN SY NO.24, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560087

¶18

4 . SATHISH RAO S/O SHRI RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARSM, R/AT NO.147, IN SY NO.24, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶23

2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-1 BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶24

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX, 14^TH CROSS, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶25

³

¶26

4 . MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVAGTE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS, II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA R/A. NO. 162, KADUBISANAHALLI, BELANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. DHAYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W SRI. RAMESH GOWDA, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. REUBEN JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DTD9.2.2004 ISSUED UNDER SECTIN 28[1] OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRAIL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD [ANNEXURE-E] AND THE NOTIFICATION DTD: 19.12.2005 OF KIADB ISSUED BY R-1 ARE DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED [ANNEXURE-G] AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATING ACT 2013.

¶31

IN W.P.No.7980/2017

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SRI. V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA AGED 47 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO. 161, ( IN SY NO. 24) KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHURU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 087. (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶34

…PETITIONER

¶35

AND:

¶36

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES

¶37

⁴

¶38

AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶39

2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-1 BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶40

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX, 14^TH CROSS, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶41

4 . MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVAGTE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS, II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

¶44

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DTD: 9.2.2004 ISSUED UNDER SECTIN 28[1] OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRAIL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD [ANNEXURE-E] AND THE NOTIFICATION DTD: 19.12.2005 OF KIADB ISSUED BY R-1 ARE DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED [ANNEXURE-G] AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATING ACT 2013.

¶45

IN W.P.No.8214/2017

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

1 . M.S. NIRAMALA D/O L.B. CHUNCHAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S)

¶48

⁵

¶49

1(A) N.P. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH H/O LATE M.S NIRMALA

¶50

S/O PUTTEGOWDA SY NO. NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD

¶51

BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶52

1(B). NIDSALE CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH MOHAN S/O N.P. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH SY NO. NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶53

1(C) LAKSHMAN.N.C S/O. N.P. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH SY NO. NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶54

MR. NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE L.B. CHUNCHAPPA AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶55

MR. HARISH (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶56

3(A) MRS. C. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE HARISH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶57

3(B) MS. H. SHWETHA D/O LATE HARISH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶58

3(C) MS. H. VINUTHA D/O LATE HARISH AGED MAJOR

¶59

⁶

¶60

RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037. 3(D). MR. H. BHARATH S/O LATE HARISH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶61

MRS. NALINI D/O LATE L.B. CHUNCHAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶62

MR. PANCHALINGASWAMY S/O LATE L.B.CHUNCHAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.)

¶63

5(A) MRS. PUSHA.H.P W/O LATE PANCHALINGASWAMY.C AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶64

5(B) MISS. BHANUSHREE.M.P D/O LATE. PANCHALINGASWAMY.C AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. ALL RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,CHANDANA KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 103.

¶65

MR. NAGARAJ S/O BASAVAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 23/4,KADUBISENAHALLI ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA ROAD BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶66

MASTERO HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶67

⁷

¶68

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 9 AND 10 CHOWDAPPA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 025. KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS D.G.M MR. ASHWIN AANCHITI.

¶69

…PETITIONERS

¶70

(BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. K, ANUSHA., ADVOCATE)

¶71

AND:

¶72

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶73

2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX, 14^TH CROSS, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶74

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-1 BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶75

4 . MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS, II BLOCK, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

⁸

¶80

KIADB ISSUED BY R-1 ARE DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED [ANNEXURE-G] AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATING ACT 2013.

¶81

THESE PETITIONS ARE BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶82

ORDER

¶83

In W.P.No.5916/2017, the petitioners have sought for

¶84

the following reliefs:-

¶85

“ (i) Declare that the Notification dated: 09.02.2004 in No. C1 255 SPQ 2001 (P) issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Annexure-“ E”) and the Notification dated: 19.12.2005 in No. CL. 126: SPQ: 2005 of KIADB issued by 1^st Respondent are deemed to have lapsed (Annexure-“G”) as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation Resettlement and Rehabilitating Act 2013; and

¶86

Without prejudice to the above prayer as an alternative prayer the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

¶87

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay to compensation, rehabilitation and other benefits to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Resettlement and Rehabilitating Act 2013; and ;

¶88

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents No.1 to 3 from taking possession

¶89

⁹

¶90

of the property measuring 25 guntas in S.No. 24 situated at Kaadubeesanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk which is in the possession of the petitioners; and

¶91

(iii-A) Issue a writ of Certiorari and Quash the Award Notice dated: 24.01.2017 issued by respondent No.3 (produced as Annexure-“AF”)

¶92

(iii-B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and Quash the possession Certificate dated: 28.10.2016 issued by 2^nd Respondent bearing No. IADB/DO2/16025/1835/2016-17 (produced as Annexure“AA”);

¶93

(iii-C) Declare that the notification dated: 09.02.2004 in No. C1 255 SPQ 2001(P) (Annexure-E) and the notification dated: 19.12.2005 in CI 126:SPQ:2005 of KIADB (Annexure-G) issued by the 1^st respondent have lapsed.

¶94

(iii-D) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award dated:05.02.2018 bearing No.Bengaluru/VBhuswaA2/2017-18 (AnnexureAG) and the award dated: 23.04.2018 bearing No. KIADB/LAQ/185/2018-19 (Annexure-AH) issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent;

¶95

(iv) Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶96

In W.P.No.7980/2017, the petitioners have sought for

¶97

the following reliefs:-

¶98

¹⁰

¶99

“ (i) Declare that the Notification dated: 09.02.2004 in No. C1 255 SPQ 2001 (P) issued under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Annexure-“ E”) and the Notification dated: 19.12.2005 in No. CL. 126: SPQ: 2005 of KIADB issued by 1^st Respondent are deemed to have lapsed (Annexure-“G”) as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation Resettlement and Rehabilitating Act 2013; and Without prejudice to the above prayer as an alternative prayer the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

¶100

¶101

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents No.1 to 3 from taking possession of the property measuring 25 guntas in S.No. 24 situated at Kaadubeesanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk which is in the possession of the petitioner; and

¶102

(iii-A) Issue a writ of Certiorari and Quash the Award Notice dated: 24.01.2017 issued by respondent No.3 (produced as Annexure-“AF”)

¶103

(iii-B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and Quash the possession Certificate dated: 28.10.2016 issued by 2^nd Respondent bearing No. IADB/DO-

¶104

¹¹

¶105

2/1 6025/ 1835/2016-17 (produced as Annexure“Z”);

¶106

¶107

¶108

(iv) Pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶109

In W.P.No.8214/2017, the petitioners have sought for

¶110

the following reliefs:-

¶111

“ a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, quashing the notice dated: 24.01.2017 signed on 27.01.2017 as per Annexure-B, without authority of law and unconstitutional;

¶112

b) Quash the Possession Certificate dated: 28.10.2016 bearing No. KIADB/DO2/16025/1835/2016-17, produced as per AnnexureX;

¶113

¹²

¶114

c) Declare that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been continued under Section 24(1) of Act No.30/2013 and deemed to have been lapsed under Section 25 of Act No. 30/2013 as per Annexure-AC.”

¶115

d) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the allotment letter dated: 25.06.2014 as per Annexure AAB restoration of cancellation letter dated: 23.12.2015 as per Annexure-AAF and alleged possession certificate dated: 28.10.2016 and sketch as per Annexure AAG & AAH as the same are without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶116

e) The allotment initiated in favour of the Respondent Company was arbitrary and opposed to Public Policy and Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Regulations of 1969 and vitiated by abuse of statutory power and exercise of power is malafide and allotment of subject land is void.

¶117

f) Declare that, the acquisition is lapsed u/s 25 of the Act 30 of 2013, since the Award was not passed within one year under Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013 since Act 30 of 2013 is applicable in view of decision of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 11209-11212/2019 disposed ion 05.04.2019 and also in terms of the Division Bench order dated: 04.02.2020 passed in W.A.No. 6819/2020 and W.A.No. 6820/2020. (Annexure-AAJ).

¶118

¹³

¶119

g) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the general award dated: 05.02.2018 (Annexure- ABF) as the same is contrary to the interim order granted by this Hon’ble Court dated: 28.02.2017 and 01.03.2017 and is ab initio void and contrary tot he mandatory provision in passing of hte award and the same is inconsistent with the principles of naturals justice and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶120

h) Further declare that, the award dated: 05.02.2018 (Annexure-ABF) is nothing but interference with the administration of justice as the issue involved int he Writ Petition itself is decided without the permission of the Court by conducting a parallel proceedings and the award is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and is ab initio void. And nullity and there is no award in the eye of law.”

¶121

Heard Sri.Udaya Holla and Sri.V.Lakshminarayan,

¶122

learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned AAG for the State, Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel for the KIADB as well as Sri.Reuben Jacob for 4^th respondent and perused the material on record.

¶123

¹⁴

¶124

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the subject matter of the present petitions are the acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject lands which were initiated pursuant to preliminary notification dated 09.04.2004 and final notification dated 19.12.2005 issued under Section 28(1) and (4) respectively of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Act, 1966 (for short ‘the KIAD Act’), pursuant to which, the impugned award dated 05.02.2018 was passed by the respondents.

¶125

The grounds on which the notifications and the award have been challenged are as under:-

¶126

(i) That the impugned awards dated 05.02.2018 have

¶127

not been passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the final notification dated 19.12.2005 as required under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A.Act’).

¶128

(ii) That the impugned awards dated 05.02.2018

¶129

have not been passed within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of final notification dated 19.12.2005 and

¶130

¹⁵

¶131

the acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also.

¶132

(iii) That in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the said Act of 2013’) the impugned acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

¶133

(iv) Alternatively, assuming that the impugned acquisition is upheld, petitioners – land losers would be entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and the respondents are to be directed to pass fresh awards by quashing the impugned awards.

¶134

The first contention of the petitioners with regard to lapsing of acquisition on account of non-passing of the impugned awards within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the final notification as contemplated under Section 11-A of the L.A.Act is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

¶135

M.Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & others – (2011) 3 SCC 408, which has been followed by this Court

¶136

¹⁶

¶137

in several judgments holding that neither Section 11-A of the L.A.Act nor the period of two years stipulated therein are applicable to the impugned acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act and consequently, the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶138

5.1 The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned awards dated 05.02.2018 having not been passed within a reasonable period of time from the date of issuance of final notification dated 19.12.2005, the impugned acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed also cannot be accepted in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ananthaswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Others – W.A.No.1451/2018 dated 02.03.2021 and Chaluvegowda vs. State of Karnataka & Others – W.A.No.637/2014 dated 15.02.2021, wherein the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Shivanna vs. State of Karnataka – (2013) KCCR 2793,

¶139

was held to be over-ruled and this Court came to the conclusion that in the light of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, which mandates that the notified lands would stand vested

¶140

¹⁷

¶141

automatically with the respondents upon issuance of the 28(4) Notification, merely because the impugned awards had not been passed for a period of more than 12 years from the date of issuance of the final notification and that the awards were not passed within reasonable time, the said circumstances cannot be made the basis to hold that the acquisition proceedings had stood lapsed on account of non-passing of awards within reasonable time and as such, even this contention cannot be accepted.

¶142

5.2 Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioners with regard to lapsing of the impugned acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 is concerned, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SLAO vs. Anasuya Bai – (2017) 3 SCC 313, which has been followed by this Court in several decisions including Ananthaswamy’s case (supra), by holding that Section 24(2) of the said Act of 2013 was not applicable to acquisitions under the KIAD Act coupled with the fact that the impugned awards dated 05.02.2018 was passed subsequent to 01.01.2014 when the said Act of 2013 came

¶143

¹⁸

¶144

into force, even this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶145

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the challenge to the impugned acquisition proceedings in the present petitions are liable to be rejected.

¶146

It is an undisputed fact that the impugned awards have been passed by the respondents by invoking the L.A.Act and not under the said Act of 2013. In this context, the said question as regards payment of compensation under either of the enactments, came up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.S.Sheenappa & Others vs. State of Karnataka & others in W.P.No.108802/2016 & connected matters dated 18.07.2022, wherein it is held that the petitioners/land losers would be entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013 and not under the L.A.Act. In the said judgment, the relevant portion reads as under:-

¶147

19. Thus, from the above contentions, the principal question that is required to be decided in these writ petitions is:

¶148

¹⁹

¶149

“Whether in respect of lands notified prior to 01.01.2014 under the KIAD Act, in respect of which an award had not been passed as on 01.01.2014, awards are required to be passed under the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act as envisaged in Section 24 (1) of the 2013 Act?”

¶150

122. As a result, it is hereby held that in respect of lands notified prior to 01.01.2014 under the KIAD Act and in respect of which, an award has not been passed as on 01.01.2014, the awards are required to be passed under Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act only.

¶151

123.The question framed in these petitions are accordingly answered.

¶152

124.The awards, if any, passed under the 1894 Act are hereby declared to be void and shall not be acted upon. If, however, the petitioners have withdrawn any sums deposited pursuant to the awards passed under the 1894 Act, the amounts withdrawn by them shall be adjusted as against the award that is required to be passed under the 2013 Act as ordered above.

¶153

125. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed . The impugned endorsements by which the Board had stated that awards will have to be made only under the 1894 Act are quashed and the Board shall now pass an award in respect of lands

¶154

²⁰

¶155

which are the subject matter of these writ petitions as provided under the 2013 Act.

¶156

Applying the law laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sheenappa’s case supra and in view of the undisputed fact that the impugned award was passed on 05.02.2018 subsequent to 01.01.2014, when the said Act of 2013 came into force, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned awards, notices, Endorsements etc., in the instant petitions deserve to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to pass awards and pay compensation together with all benefits, interest etc., in favour of the petitioners under the said Act of 2013.

¶157

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶158

Order in W.P.No.5916/2017

¶159

(i) W.P.No.5916/2017 is partly allowed.

¶160

¶161

²¹

¶162

schedule property bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli village, Varthur hobli, Bangalore East / South Taluk, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶163

(iii) The respondents are directed to pass fresh awards in favour of the petitioners and pay them compensation together with all benefits, interest etc., in respect of the petition schedule property as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶164

Order in W.P.No.7980/2017

¶165

(i) W.P.No.7980/2017 is partly allowed.

¶166

(ii) The impugned award notice at Annexure-AF dated 24.01.2017, impugned award at Annexure-AG dated 05.02.2018 and the impugned award notice at AnnexureAH dated 23.04.2018 insofar as they relate to the petition schedule property bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 25 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli village, Varthur hobli,

¶167

²²

¶168

Bangalore East / South Taluk, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶169

¶170

Order in W.P.No.8214/2017

¶171

(i) W.P.No.8214/2017 is partly allowed.

¶172

(ii) The impugned award notice at Annexure-ABG dated 23.04.2018 and the impugned award at AnnexureABF dated 05.02.2018 insofar as they relate to the petition schedule property bearing Sy.No.23/4 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas situated at Kadubeesanahalli village, Varthur hobli, Bangalore East / South Taluk, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

¶173

²³

¶174

¶175

Sd/JUDGE

¶176

Srl.

Venkataramana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkataramana 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

Mr K J Praveen Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri Bhaskar Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bharat Electronics Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

August Ventures (P) Limited Vs Karnataka Udyoga Mitra

Smt. Noor Jahan Iqbal Vs the Commissioner