Allowed

Sri R Chenraj Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2023WP/2590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a General Award regarding land acquisition. Relying on a prior coordinate bench decision, the Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine compensation as if by agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned award in relation to the petitioner; direction to determine compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) within eight weeks.

Sri R Chenraj Jain Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 2590 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2590 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. R CHENRAJ JAIN, S/O SRI P ROYCHAND, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.99/3, FLAT NO.1001, PLATINUM ANAND, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 019. SENIOR CITIZENSHIP FEE RELAXATION NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARAN N MAJAGE.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO.106, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 2590 of 2023

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER., KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ2/2022-23 DATED 16/07/2022 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 36 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.44/3 AND 3 ACRES 36 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.66/1 OF HARALURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPTNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri. R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, learned Panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 2590 of 2023

¶25

The learned AGA and also the learned Panel counsel for the respondent-KIADB are broadly in agreement that the fact matrix of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.Nos.3961139612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016. The paragraphs 2 & 3 of the said decision reads as under:-

¶26

“2. Section 29(2) of ‘KIAD Act’, provides for determination of compensation by way of agreement. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to such a consideration since it is stated that by agreement, petitioners would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of a determination by way of a general award. In addition, it is stated that there would be a finality to the acquisition proceedings and also for settlement of compensation since petitioners would be disentitled to challenge the same and to seek for higher market value/compensation. Therefore, there is a need to interfere with the general award at Annexure-F in so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶27

3. In the circumstances, these petitions are allowed. General award at Annexure-F on so far as it relates to petitioners, is quashed. A direction shall ensue to the third respondentSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to consider the case of the petitioners for determination of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD

¶28

¶29

WP No. 2590 of 2023

¶30

Act, to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this order is applicable if there is no dispute to title to the immovable property acquired and if there is one, then the general award in so far as petitioners are concerned will stand restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount in relation to the aforesaid land, if deposited in the Civil Court. No costs.”

¶31

There is an assurance, both from the side of the

¶32

respondent-Government and the respondent KIADB that petitioner’s representation shall be considered in terms of aforementioned paragraphs 2 & 3 for treating the said acquisition as the one made with the consent of the land owner for the purpose of payment of compensation within a reasonable period under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶33

In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds in terms of the decision cited above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned award dated 16.7.2022 (Annexure-F) only so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioner for the purpose of determination & payment of

¶34

¶35

WP No. 2590 of 2023

¶36

compensation as if the award is by agreement under

¶37

Section 29 (2) of the Act, leaving the vested title of the

¶38

land with the respondent-KIADB, otherwise unaffected.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CBC

Sri R Chenraj Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Chenraj Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sampangiramu Vs M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

Mr. Syed Fayaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.T.Kempegowda Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shabi Rabi Vs State of Karnataka