Allowed

Sri. Thimmanaika v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/22643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition seeking quashing of general awards on land acquired under the KIAD Act was allowed. The awards were quashed due to lack of proper notice. The court directed the respondents to pass an award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within three months.

What did the court decide?

General awards dated 16.03.2021 and 17.07.2021 quashed; directed to pass award under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act, 1966 within three months.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37203 WP No. 22643 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22643 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. THIMMANAIKA W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. VENKATACHALA. M. R. S/O. RAMANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE, BHAVANAHALLI POST, SHIVARAPATNA, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKARA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:37203 WP No. 22643 of 2023

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB), BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE GENERAL AWARDS DTD 16.03.2021 BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ.2021-22 AND AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ:305:2021-22 DTD 17.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY., PASSED BY THE R3 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Additional Government Advocate is directed to take

¶26

notice for respondent No.1 and Sri P. V. Chandrashekar,

¶27

learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent

¶28

Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37203 WP No. 22643 of 2023

¶30

This petition is filed seeking to quash general awards dated 16.03.2021 and 17.07.2021 in respect of land bearing Survey No.22/3 measuring 0.3 guntas, survey No.22/5 measuring 0.2 gutas and Sy.No.14/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas which are situated at Mindahalli Village, Kasaba hobli, Mallur Taluk, Kolar District belonging to the petitioners.

¶31

Sri . Ravishankara. K., Learned counsel for

¶32

petitioner submits that, the petitioners are not objecting

¶33

for acquisition. Without proper and effective service of notice, the respondent authorities have proceeded to pass the general award which is not in the best interest of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to pass award in terms of Section 29(3) of KIAD Act, 1966.

¶34

In response Sri. P. V. Chandrashekar, learned

¶35

counsel for respondent, submits that despite of service of notice petitioners did not appear before the Land

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37203 WP No. 22643 of 2023

¶37

Acquisition Officer which constrained the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the general award. He submits that since the petitioners are not objecting for the acquisition, given some time award in terms of Section 29(2) would be passed.

¶38

In that view of the matter petition is allowed. The general awards dated 16.03.2021 and 17.07.2021 as per Annexures A and B so far as they relates to the properties of the petitioners referred to herein above are quashed.

¶39

Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Development Area Act, 1966 and pass the award in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:37203 WP No. 22643 of 2023

¶41

¶42

Needless to state if there is any dispute with

¶43

regard to entitlement of the petitioners, general awards produced at Annexures-A and B which have been quashed would stand restored. Respondent-SLAO is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited, if any, before the Civil Court pursuant to the general award.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

LDC

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri. Thimmanaika v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Thimmanaika 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. Doddaanjinappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B Sumithra Vs the Commissioner

C. N. Sadashivappa Vs State of Karnataka