Allowed

Sri. Papanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/20667/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashing of a general award and directed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to consider a representation under Section 29(2) for a consent award at the Price Advisory Committee rate. The general award was set aside to the extent of the petitioner's land.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; general award set aside; direction to respondents to consider representation for consent award under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 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. 20667 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PAPANNA S/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KONAGHATTA, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARAN N MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 of 2023

¶17

NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2032/2023-24 DATED 06/06/2023 PASSED BY THE R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY. NO. 21/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 06 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-E. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER SECTION 29(2) OF THE KIAD ACT AND BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT KIADB TO WITHDRAW THE GENERAL AWARD AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN REFERENCE COURT.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court seeking quash of the general award dated 06.06.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in respect of land in Sy.No.21/1 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated at Chapparadahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, insofar as, petitioner is concerned as per Annexure-E.

¶25

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.1,25,00,000/- per acre in

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 of 2023

¶28

respect of certain properties in said village. Said recommendation of the Price Advisory Committee was accepted by the Board. However, the general award was passed on 06.06.2023 determining the compensation at Rs.81,77,610/-.

¶29

That the petitioner has not challenged the

¶30

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.1,25,00,000/- per acre.

¶31

In response, learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-KIADB submits that the general award has been already passed and 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.

¶32

Submission taken on record.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 of 2023

¶35

Since, the petitioner is not questioning or

¶36

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 06.06.2023 produced at Annexure-E to the extent of the land pertaining to petitioner is set aside.

¶37

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

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:35690 WP No. 20667 of 2023

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SBN

Sri. Papanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Papanna 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 Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fashion Power Vs Bangalore Development Authority