Partly allowed

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/21508/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the general award for 3 acres of land and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioners' documents to determine compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned general award was quashed. Petitioners must submit documents for an agreement on compensation; otherwise, the general award may stand restored.

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 21508 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENKATESH @ VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

SRI. RAMAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

¶10

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

¶11

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 BOTH R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBALI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.

¶12

SMT. ANJINAMMA S/O LATE RAMAIAH W/O BANDEVENKATERAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBALI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. KOUSHAL K.B.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN R R.,ADVOCATES)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶19

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶24

PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/2018/2023-24 DATED:06/06/2023 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 97/P2, JMC BLOCK NO. 08 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRES SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST., AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri.Koushal K.B, learned counsel for Sri. Varun for the petitioners and Sri. Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶28

Present petition is filed challenging the general award passed by the respondent No.3 on 06.06.2023 in respect of land in Sy.No.97/P2, JMC Block No.8, measuring 3 acres situated at Doddagollahalli village, Kundana Hobali, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District as per Annexure-A and for further direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioners as per

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶31

Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'KIAD Act') for determination of compensation by way of an agreement.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no objection for acquisition of land by the respondents-KIADB except that the compensation ought to have been determined by agreement and that same would have given better prospects of compensation to the petitioners instead of general award.

¶33

Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in response submits that respondent No.3 was constrained to pass general award inasmuch as though the petitioners had appeared and filed their statement of objections, not furnished the documents justifying their title over the property. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that if the petitioners submit relevant documents in support of their claim over

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶35

the property, on consideration of the same the award would be passed by way of an agreement as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶36

Submission is taken on record.

¶37

In that view of the matter, petition is disposed

¶38

of. The impugned general award dated 06.06.2023 vide Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.3, insofar as it relates to petitioners land in Sy.No.97/P2, JMC Block No.8,

¶39

measuring 3 acres situated at Doddagollahalli village, Kundana Hobali, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, is hereby set aside and quashed. Petitioners to submit relevant documents in support of their claim over

¶40

the property seeking passing of award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent

¶41

No.3-SLAO to consider such representation and pass appropriate orders considering the case of the petitioners

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:36426 WP No. 21508 of 2023

¶43

¶44

for determination of compensation by agreement within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. It is made clear that

¶45

if there being any dispute with regard to title of the petitioners, general award would stand restored and liberty is reserved to respondent No.3-SLAO to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited before the jurisdictional Court pursuant to general award.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatesh @ Venkateshappa, 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

Sri. Manjunatha Seva Trust Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri C M Venkataravanan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H T Sathyanarayan Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Muneshwaraswamy Temple Development Trust (Regd), Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka