Disposed

C Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/1201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants permission to petitioners to file a representation seeking enhanced compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, provided similar cases received such benefits, while dismissing the original plea to quash the General Award.

What did the court decide?

Court permitted petitioners to file a representation for enhanced benefits under Section 29(2) of the Act. Petition disposed keeping contentions open.

C Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1201 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

C KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O CHINNAPPA R/AT 3, 4^TH CROSS, DVG ROAD, NAGASHETTY HALL, BANGALORE NORTH, RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

RAMYA KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O C KRISHNAPPA R/AT 3, 4^TH CROSS, DVG ROAD, NAGASHETTY HALL, BANGALORE NORTH, RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094

¶12

ANIL KUMAR

¶13

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O C KRISHNAPPA R/AT 3, 4^TH CROSS, DVG ROAD, NAGASHETTY HALL, BANGALORE NORTH, RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094.

¶14

ARCHANA K AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O C KRISHNAPPA R/AT 3, 4^TH CROSS, DVG ROAD, NAGASHETTY HALL, BANGALORE NORTH RMV EXTENSION II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 1201 of 2023

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. UDAY K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REPTD., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶21

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT, NO.49,4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REPTD BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39. 4^TH FLOOR, SHANTIGRUHA, SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C RAMAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED GENERAL AWARD DAED 02.03.2021,BEARING NO.KIADB.LAQ.2020.21,PASSED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE PROVISION OF 29(2) OF THE KIAD ACT.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The short grievance of the Petitioners, regardless of

¶29

the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to non-

¶30

¶31

WP No. 1201 of 2023

¶32

extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioners banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.

¶33

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by contending that the petitioners claim squarely falls in General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of the Act; they have already accordingly received entire compensation; therefore, he cannot be granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is although broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits

¶35

¶36

WP No. 1201 of 2023

¶37

the petitioners to file a representation seeking enhanced

¶38

benefit in terms of Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, provided that in similar cases such a benefit has been accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell in the General Award category.

¶39

If such a representation is made, KIADB would consider the same in accordance with law and within a period of three months.

¶40

It is open to the Petitioners to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Government Notification dated 23.02.2021 in lieu of compensation as per Annexure-H to the Petition.

¶41

Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping open all contentions.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

Bsv

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

C Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Krishnappa 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 a Rajanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R Chenraj Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anjanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K. Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Hiralal Vs the Commissioner