Partly allowed

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023WP/149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in Writ Petition No.149/2023 deals with the quashing of a General Award regarding land acquisition. The court applied a precedent from a cognate petition (W.P.No.25079/2022) and disposed of the petition, extending similar benefits and directing the Respondents to reconsider the claimants' entitlement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned General Award is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI. DYAVANNA @ DYAVAPPA S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶9

2 . SRI. M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDDING AT POLANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHARAN N MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶17

¶18

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

3 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L.PRADEED KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ-2/1779/2022-23 DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 24 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.31/1 OF POLANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The subject matter of this Writ petition is substantially

¶26

similar to the one in W.P.No.25079/2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶27

between IBRAHIM KHAN & ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off by Co-ordinate Bench

¶28

¶29

of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2022, wherein operative portion reads as under:

¶30

"6. In the result, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned General award at Annexure–J dated 16.07.2019 is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and pass award as expeditiously as possible.

¶33

(iv) It is made clear that in the event, if any dispute arise with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the General award at Annexure – J which has been quashed

¶34

by this Court would revive.

¶35

(v) Liberty is reserved to Spl.LAO,KIADB to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to General award.

¶36

No costs."

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the Petitioners banking upon

¶39

the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.932933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, submits that relief needs to be extended to his client who is similarly circumstanced. This is not much opposed by the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the RespondentKIADB, rightly and in all fairness.

¶40

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off extending the same benefit as has been granted to the litigant in the cognate writ petition above, mutatis mutandis .

¶41

Costs made easy.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa 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

Nanjundappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka

A K Jayachandra Reddy Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri R Chakrapani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraju S Vs the State of Karnataka