Allowed

Smt. Manjulamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/6346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the court issued a writ of Certiorari quashing the General Award dated 03/03/2021. The court directed that compensation be determined by agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned General Award dated 3.3.2021; direction to determine compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

Smt. Manjulamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6346 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6346 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O GUDIYAPPA, D/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶9

SHRI. T. PRAKASH, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶10

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

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

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

¶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

WP No. 6346 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DTD 03/03/2021 BEARING NO. KIADB/L.A.Q/1873/2020-21 DTD 03/03/2021 VIDE ANNEXUREA PASSED BY THE R-3 AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Sri. R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned AGA accepts notice

¶26

on behalf of respondent No.1; Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned Panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶27

Learned AGA and also learned Panel counsel for

¶28

the respondent-KIADB are broadly in agreement that the fact matrix of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to

¶29

3 - WP No. 6346 of 2023

¶30

that in W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed

¶31

off by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision reads as under:-

¶32

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.

¶33

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 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

¶34

¶35

WP No. 6346 of 2023

¶36

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.”

¶37

There is an assurance from the side of the respondent-Government and the respondent-KIADB that Petitioners’ representation shall be considered within a reasonable period in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the decision cited supra for treating the said acquisition as the one made with the consent of the land owner for the purpose of payment of compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

¶38

In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in terms of the decision cited above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 3.3.2021 so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners

¶39

and only for the purpose of determination and payment of the compensation as if the award is by agreement under

¶40

¶41

WP No. 6346 of 2023

¶42

Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, leaving the vested title of

¶43

the land with the respondent-KIADB, otherwise unaffected.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

cbc

Smt. Manjulamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjulamma 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

M/S Kempegowda Rural House Building Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Kempegowda Rural House Building Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T M Narayanaswamy Vs the Principal Secretary

Gopal S Vs Bangalore Development Authority

S Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.R. Chandrashekar, Vs Sri.Rudrappa