Allowed

Sri. Doddaanjinappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/21549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought to set aside a general award passed in respect of certain land and directed respondent authorities to consider his case for determination of compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, following a compromise decree in an underlying suit. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the award to the extent of the petitioner's land and directing authorities to pro

What did the court decide?

The general award dated 06.06.2023 was set aside to the extent of the petitioner's land. The petitioner was directed to make a representation enabling consideration under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37175 WP No. 21549 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21549 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DODDAANJINAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/A DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VARUN R.R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:37175 WP No. 21549 of 2023

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD PASSED BY THE R3 BEARING NO. KIADB/LAQ/2019-2023-24 DATED 06/06/2023 IN RESPECT OF SY. NO. 97/P5, JMC BLOCK NO. 16 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Additional Government Advocate is directed to take

¶23

notice for respondent No.1 and Sri P. V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel is directed to notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:37175 WP No. 21549 of 2023

¶26

This petition is filed seeking to set aside the general award dated 06.06.2023 passed by the third respondent in respect of land bearing survey No.97/P5, JMC Block No.16 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas situated at Doddagollahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District as per Annexure-1 and for further direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 for determination of compensation by way of an agreement.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of aforesaid land which has been acquired by the respondent KIAD in terms of the notification dated 25.05.2022 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966; that though the petitioner has no objection in respondent authorities acquiring the land, the respondent authorities have proceeded to pass the general award. He submits that, as regards subsequent acquisition, suit in O.S.No.719/2023 had been filed and the said suit has now been compromised by a compromise decree dated

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37175 WP No. 21549 of 2023

¶29

02.09.2023 in terms of which the subject property has been allotted to the petitioner. He submits that now there is no impediment of any nature whatsoever in respondent authorities determining the compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966.

¶30

In response Sri. P. V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-KIADB submits that the general award was passed in view of the pendency of the suit. Now that the petitioner is contending a compromise decree has been arrived at, on verification of the same, the requisition of the petitioner for consideration of his case under Section 29(2) would be done.

¶31

Accepting the above submission, petition is allowed , general award dated 06.06.2023 is set aside to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner herein above.

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall make a representation along with the requisite documents enabling the respondent authorities to consider his case under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:37175 WP No. 21549 of 2023

¶35

(ii) The respondent authorities are at liberty to call for further records if required and after satisfying itself shall pass the award within a period of three months in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act 1966.

¶36

(iii) If there is any dispute with regard to title the general award passed shall stand restored. Deposit made if any before the Court by respondent authorities are at liberty to withdraw the deposit made if any.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Sri. Doddaanjinappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Doddaanjinappa, 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.Veerabhadra Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Sri Raghu Vs Bangalore Development Authortity

H R Bharathkumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thimmanaika Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B Sumithra Vs the Commissioner

C. N. Sadashivappa Vs State of Karnataka