Allowed

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/5413/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coordinate Bench order allowing writ petition to quash General Award and direct consideration of claim under Section 29(2) of KID Act. Court extends same benefit to similarly situated petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Impugned General Award quashed; Respondents directed to consider claim under Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966.

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5413 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5413 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI KEMPABYREGOWDA M.B. S/O. LATE M.B. GANGAPPA @ GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

SRI KRISHNAIAH M.G. S/O. LATE M.B. GANGAPPA @ GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶11

SRI CHANNABYREGOWDA M.G. S/O. LATE M.B. GANGAPPA @ GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVERAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

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

¶15

(BY SRI SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 5413 of 2023

¶21

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.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2022-23 DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY. NO.62/2 MEASURING 0.35 GUNTAS AND LAND IN SY.NO.64/1 MEASURING 1 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED AT AVVERAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED,WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The subject matter of this Writ petition is

¶28

substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.25079/2022 (LA-

¶29

KIADB) between IBRAHIM KHAN & ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2022,

¶30

wherein operative portion reads as under:

¶31

“ 6. In the result, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

¶34

WP No. 5413 of 2023

¶35

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶36

(ii) The impugned General award at Annexure–J dated 16.07.2019 is hereby quashed.

¶37

(iii) Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners under Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and pass award as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

(iv) It is made clear that in the event, if any dispute arise with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the General award at Annexure – J which has been quashed by this Court would revive.

¶39

(v) Liberty is reserved to Spl.LAO,KIADB to withdraw the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court pursuant to General award.

¶40

No costs.”

¶41

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners banking

¶42

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

¶43

vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, submits that relief needs to be extended to his clients who are similarly circumstanced. This is not much opposed by the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-KIADB, rightly and in all fairness.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 5413 of 2023

¶46

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off extending the same benefit as has been granted to the litigant in the cognate writ petition above, mutatis mutandis .

¶47

Costs made easy.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

MBM

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kempabyregowda. M. B. 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

T Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajegowda Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri. a Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

M S Saileela Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mukundaiah C v Vs the State of Karnataka