Disposed

Sri. M.V. Guruprasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023RP/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed applications for condonation of delay and directed KIADB to pay the admittedly payable compensation amount to the petitioners within four weeks, with interest for further delay.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 129 days condoned; direction issued to KIADB to pay admittedly payable compensation within four weeks; 2% interest if delay brooked.

Sri. M.V. Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45184 RP No. 330 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 330 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.V. GURUPRASAD, S/O M B VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT 690/K, 14^TH MAIN, J P NAGAR, II PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078.

¶9

SMT NANDINI M GURUPRASAD @ NANDINI G MANKALE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT 690/K, 14^TH MAIN, J P NAGAR, II PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KIADB, III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:45184 RP No. 330 of 2023

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFCER II, KIADB,

¶20

III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/02/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 61426/2016 (ANNEXURE-A) AND QUANTIFY THE SUMS PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER DIRECTIONS (I) AND (II) OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT AND B) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 61426/2016 DISPOSED OFF BY THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 10/02/2023 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Writ Petitioners seek review of the judgment dated 10.02.2023 whereby the subject Writ Petition was disposed off in their favour. Learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners submits that what is payable to his clients should be much more than what is now approved by the Respondent – KIADB and therefore, accordingly the operative portion of the said judgment needs to be modified. He also draws attention of the Court to the two Applications the one for condonation of delay in IA No.1/2023 viz and the other for a direction to the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:45184 RP No. 330 of 2023

¶29

Respondent – KIADB to the Petitioners the amount admittedly payable to them, regardless of the outcome of the W.A.No.1382/2023 filed by the KIADB.

¶30

Learned panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB

¶31

does not have much objections for condoning the delay in filing the Review petition and also for making the payment of amount admittedly payable to the Petitioners in terms

¶32

of the order/Award, subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal. After all, what is payable is the recompense for the land lost in acquisition. It’s a constitutional obligation under Article 300A.

¶33

In view of the above, the Application in IA No.1/2023 is allowed and delay of 129 days stands condoned. Similarly, the Application in IA No.2/2023 is also favorued and a direction issues to the Respondent – KIADB to pay to the Review Petitioners the amount of compensation admittedly payable to them, within four weeks. If delay is brooked, the same would carry interest at the rate of 2%

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:45184 RP No. 330 of 2023

¶36

per mensum, which may be recovered from the erring officials personally.

¶37

In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the Review Petition and accordingly the same is disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. M.V. Guruprasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.V. Guruprasad v. 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. Sudheer K Vs Tumkur Veerashaiava

Sri. Maresh. v Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

Mr. Munigangappa. M. Vs the Bharat Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Anitha Rao N Vs the Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Crystal Infosystems and Services Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

R Jagadeesh Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants