Disposed

Sri R Venu @ R Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2023WP/524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench permitted a petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act for land acquired under General Award Category, requiring KIADB to consider it within three months if similar cases were approved.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit under Section 29(2) of the Act; KIADB directed to consider it within three months.

Sri R Venu @ R Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 524 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 524 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI R VENU @ R VENUGOPAL, S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 035.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VARUN R R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMETN OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

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

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPEMENT BOARD MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 524 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD PASSED BY THE R3 DATED 23.10.2013 BEARING NO. KIADB. AL.A.Q.2013-14 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES BEARING SURVEY NO. 21/4, 26/1, 27 MEASURING ABOUT 5 1/2 GUNTAS , 2 1/2 GUNTAS AND 4 ACRE 11 GUNTAS RESPECTICELY AND SITUTAED AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE , KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR AS PER ANNEXURE A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless of the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to nonextension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioner banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.39611-39612/2016 (LAKIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.

¶24

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶25

Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by contending that the petitioner's claim squarely falls in

¶26

¶27

WP No. 524 of 2023

¶28

General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of

¶29

the Act; he has already accordingly received entire compensation; therefore, he cannot be granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is although broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits the petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit in terms of Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, provided that in similar cases such a benefit has been accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell in the General Award category.

¶31

If such a representation is made, KIADB would consider the same in accordance with law and within a period of three months.

¶32

It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Government

¶33

¶34

WP No. 524 of 2023

¶35

Notification dated 04.12.2012 in lieu of compensation as

¶36

per Annexure-E to the Petition.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping

¶38

open all contentions.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Bsv

Sri R Venu @ R Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Venu @ R Venugopal 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

Sandeep Shenoy Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekhar Vs the Secretary

Smt Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt a C Bhaygamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Blossom School Vs the Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri. Premkumar Vs Bangalore Development Authority