Disposed

Sri K. Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/46774/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of two writ petitions filed by individuals challenging land acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Following the principle of parity and reliance on a quasi-identical decision (M.V.Guruprasad v. State of Karnataka), the court granted relief to the petitioners without adjudicating the merits of the acquisition challenge.

What did the court decide?

Extended relief granted in M.V.Guruprasad v. State of Karnataka: Direct determination and payment of compensation under RFR&RA 2013 with interest.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 46773 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB) C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 46774 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

IN W.P.NO.46773/2013:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. TULASAMMA, W/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAM NAGARA, SRIRAMAPURA, BANGALORE-21.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.MITHUN G A.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 01.

¶17

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. RAJASHEKHARA SEERI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3-ABSENT)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 1.12.2009 VIDE ANN-B AND QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.7.2010 VIDE ANN-C IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.8/1 MEASURING 2 ACRES 10 GUNTAS SITUATED AT VASANTHA NARASAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. ENABLING THE PETITIONER TO AVAIL OPPORTUNITY REQUIRED FOR THE PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED BY FILING OBJECTIONS AND ETC.,

¶24

IN W.P.NO.46774/2013:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. K. SRINIVAS, S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAM NAGARA, SRIRAMAPURA, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶27

SRI. K. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAM NAGARA, SRIRAMAPURA, BANGALORE-560 021.

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI.C SARASWATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 - WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.

¶33

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, AT NO 14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶34

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO 14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.RAJESHEKHARA SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRLY. NOTIFICATION DT.1.12.09, PRODUCED AT ANN-B AND QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 23.7.2010 PRODUCED AT ANN-C IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.8/1 MEASURING 2 ACRES 28 GUNTAS SITUATED AT BATSANDRA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST. ENABLING THE PETITIONERS TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY REQUIRED FOR THE PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED BY FILING OBJECTIONS AND ETC.,

¶38

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶41

ORDER

¶42

In both these cases petitioners are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court seeking to lay a challenge to the acquisition of their lands under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

¶44

fairly submits that the subject lands having been acquired pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 01.12.2009 issued u/s 28(1) followed by Final Notification dated 23.7.2010 issued u/s 28(4) of the 1966 Act, the lands have vested in the State in the light of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17600/2004 between NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA , disposed off on 15.06.2011.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶46

fairly enough concedes that possession of property is also taken and therefore, notwithstanding some arguable

¶47

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶48

¶49

illegalities in the acquisition process, his clients would be

¶50

satisfied if relief as has been granted to litigants in W.P.No.61426/2016 M.V.GURUPRASAD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 10.02.2023 is granted herein as well. He points out that the benefit of the said decision should avail to his clients even if the compensation amount were to be deposited in the court in the absence of award notice/deposit notice to the khatedars . This court shares this view.

¶51

The operative portion of the judgment in M.V.GURUPRASAD supra reads as under:

¶52

“ In the above circumstances, this Court makes the following directions:

¶53

(i) This Writ Petition succeeds in part. Although challenge to the acquisition of the subject lands is negatived, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to determine/re-fix the compensation at the rate of 50% to be computed under the provisions of Section 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

¶54

6 - WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶55

2013 along with solatium, interest & such other benefits

¶56

(ii) The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to pay to the Petitioners within eight weeks the amount of compensation to be determined as per the direction issued in the immediately preceding paragraph (i) with additional interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be computed from the date, the possession of subject lands was taken away from the Petitioners;

¶57

(iii) In the event, the Writ Appeal No.100393/2022 is dismissed, upholding the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.108802/2016 c/w 107748/2014, 100762/2017 between SHEENAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 18.07.2022, Petitioners shall be paid the compensation to be determined under the provisions of 2013 Act minus what is paid in terms of the above directions;

¶58

(iv) The Respondent-KIADB shall pay to the Petitioners, the cost to be computed at the rate of Rs.25,000/per Acre.”

¶59

5. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondent –

¶60

State although initially opposed the Petition, now fairly

¶61

¶62

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶63

agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of

¶64

the Petitioners, i.e., claim for compensation in the light of decision of this Court in M.V. GURUPRASAD supra . He hastens to add that essentially, the decision has to be taken by the KIADB & its officials in the light of observations made therein. Though this matter was posted on 13.2.2023, reluctantly a short accommodation was granted to the Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, who is absent before the Court this day. However, inconvenience caused by absence of the Panel Counsel

¶65

cannot be a ground for delaying or denying relief to the Petitioners, especially in light of their fair stand taken before this Court through their learned advocate.

¶66

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER

¶67

Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should ordinarily treat like-cases alike even in the case of grant of interim relief and if relief is granted to a

¶68

¶69

WP No. 46773 of 2013 C/W WP No. 46774 of 2013

¶70

litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶71

In view of the above, Writ Petitions are disposed off. Relief as has been granted to the litigants in the cognate writ petition, i.e., M.V. GURUPRASAD supra is extended to the Petitioners herein on the principle of parity, mutatis mutandis.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

cbc

Sri K. Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K. Srinivas 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 a Rajanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R Chenraj Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anjanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Hiralal Vs the Commissioner

M Katappa Vs the State of Karnataka