Allowed

R Annadanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022WP/903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought to quash a general award passed in land acquisition proceedings for a Metro Rail project. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the award to the extent of the petitioner's property, directing the authority to determine compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

What did the court decide?

The general award dated 13th May, 2020, was quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner. The KIADB is directed to consider the claim for compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act wi

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

¶1

¶2

WP NO.903 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.903 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. ANNADANAPPA S/O T.N. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.6, KANAKAPURA ROAD, NEAR JNANA SWEEKAR PUBLIC SCHOOL, TALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 109.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VARUN R.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

WP NO.903 OF 2022

¶18

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. REGD. OFFICE: B.M.T.C COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NITYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. HARISH N.N, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 13^TH MAY, 2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-E INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TO AN EXTENT OF 16 GUNTAS (30492 SQ. FT) BEARING SL.NO.678 IN PROPERTY NO.11-11/1 CARVED OUT OF SURVEY NO.11 AND PHODED AS SURVEY NO.11/2 SITUATED AT UTTARAHALLI MANAVARTHE KAVAL VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK; AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Though this writ petition was listed for orders, it is taken

¶26

up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

The petitioner in this petition claims to be owner in possession of the immovable property to an extent of 16 guntas bearing Sl.No.678 in property No.11-11/1 carved out of

¶28

¶29

WP NO.903 OF 2022

¶30

Survey No.11 and phoded as Survey No.11/2 situate at Uttarahalli Manavarthe Kaval village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question has been acquired and general award was passed by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘KIADB’) for development of Anjanapura Metro Depot-Bengaluru Metro Rail Project. It is further stated in the petition that the land belonging to the petitioner came to be notified for acquisition for the ostensible purpose of Bengaluru Metro Rail Project wherein the respondent-KIADB has passed general award dated 13^th May, 2020 (Annexure-E). It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards the land acquired by the respondent-KIADB as per the consent Agreement and in this regard, he addressed a letter to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., by its letter dated 27^th May, 2020 has opined that it may be considered under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

¶32

¶33

WP NO.903 OF 2022

¶34

This Court in the case of SMT. NINGAMMA vs. THE

¶35

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.6198 of 2015 decided on 25^th August, 2015 (Annexure-J), has observed that since Section 29(2) of the Act provides for determination of compensation by an agreement, the petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under the general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in the petition. In that view of the matter, there is a need to interfere with the general award dated 13^th May, 2020 (Annexure-E). Hence, I pass the following:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

(i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶38

(ii) General award dated 13^th May, 2020 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-E) insofar as it relates to the petitioner is concerned, is quashed;

¶39

(iii) The Respondent-KIADB is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an Agreement under Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act as expeditiously as possible,

¶40

¶41

WP NO.903 OF 2022

¶42

within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶43

(iv) It is made clear that, in the event, if there is a title dispute with regard to the subject land, the general award dated 13^th May, 2020 (Annexure-E) which has been quashed by this Court, would revive.

¶44

(v) Needless to state that the interested parties have to be heard before considering the agreement made by the petitioner.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

ARK

R Annadanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Annadanappa 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

Sri M B Somanna Vs the Commissioner

The Commissioner Vs T G Nagaraj

The Commissioner Vs Durgoji Rao

Smt Rekha Hanu Vs the Commissioner

Sri v C Manjunath Vs Mr a S Bangaru Kuldeep

Smt. Arpitha N Vs Sri Arjun v