Allowed

Sri Muniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/20363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition to quash the General Award of Rs. 41,98,305/- and directed the Respondents to consider the petitioner's application for a consent award agreement based on the Price Advisory Committee's recommendation of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- per acre under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, while withdrawing deposited amounts pending resolution.

What did the court decide?

General Award dated 10.04.2023 set aside; Petitioner allowed to seek consent award under Section 29(2); Respondents directed to consider application; Amount deposited withdrawable by KIADB.

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20363 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUNIYAPPA

¶8

S/O CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A KONAGHATTA DODDABALLAPURA

¶9

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARAN N MAJAGE., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTIION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶19

NO.14/3, IST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.LAGALI HANUMATHARAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-1, SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶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/57/2023-24 DATED 10.04.2023 PASSED BY THE R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.12/2 MEASURING 11 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED AT CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER SECTION 29(2) OF THE KIAD ACT AND BY DIRECTING R3 TO WITHDRAW THE GENERAL AWARD AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE REFERENCE COURT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court seeking quash of the

¶26

general award dated 10.04.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in respect of land in Sy.No.12/2 measuring 11 guntas situated at Chapparadahalli Village, Kundana Hobli,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶29

Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, insofar as, petitioner is concerned as per Annexure-D.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the aforesaid land and the revenue records are standing in his name. That the respondent No.2 had by notification dated 09.06.2010 issued under section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act proposed to acquire 867 acres 37 guntas of land in the said village which included property of the petitioner. The Final Notification was also issued on 25.05.2022. That the Price Advisory Committee in its 382^nd meeting held on 04.01.2023 has fixed the compensation for consent award by agreement at the rate of Rs.1,15,00,000/- per acre in respect of certain lands in said village. Said recommendation of the Price Advisory Committee was accepted by the Board. However, the general award has been passed on 10.04.2023 determining the compensation at Rs.41,98,305/-.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶32

That the petitioner has not challenged the

¶33

notification issued by respondent authorities acquiring the land. In that view of the matter it was necessary on the part of the authorities to have passed the consent award taking into consideration recommendation of the Price Advisory Committee at Rs.1,15,00,000/- per acre.

¶34

In response, learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-KIADB submits that the general award was passed in view of a title dispute pending consideration in O.S.No.6/2022 on the file of Civil Judge, Devanahalli. He further submits that the said suit has now been disposed of as settled on 13.08.2022. Learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB further submits that in view of the changed circumstances given an opportunity the respondent-authorities would consider the case of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

¶35

Submission taken on record.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶38

Since, the petitioner is not questioning or

¶39

challenging the acquisition per se and is only insisting for payment of compensation in terms of the recommendation made by Price Advisory Committee and the consent award to be passed under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, in view of the submission made the learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB that the said request would be considered in accordance with law, the petition is allowed. The general award dated 10.04.2023 produced at Annexure-D to the extent of the land pertaining to petitioner is set aside.

¶40

Petitioner to file necessary application/representation within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order seeking compensation under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 is directed to consider the application/representation for award of compensation by way of consent award/agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and pass necessary orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:35689 WP No. 20363 of 2023

¶42

¶43

receipt of application/ representation of the petitioner. The respondents-KIADB is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited before reference court pursuant to the general award passed by them. Needless to state that in the event of any dispute, the general award would stand restored.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SBN

Sri Muniyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniyappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ellis Fashion Exports Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramchandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Union of India

Sri. Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fashion Power Vs Bangalore Development Authority