Disposed

Sri. Nagaraju v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2023WP/6694/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged General Award for land acquisition, claiming enhanced compensation under Section 29. Court agreed counsel's view that claim falls under General Award category but permitted petition for representation regarding enhancement if accords to similar cases.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file representation for enhancement compensation under Section 29(2) if accorded in similar General Award cases.

Sri. Nagaraju v Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6694 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6694 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NAGARAJU V, S/O LATE S. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.13, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR MYSORE HOSPITAL, GORAGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH -560 022. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MAHESHA D., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, C.F.C BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAAN, I FLOOR, N R ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 6694 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB.LAQ NO. 976/2022-23 DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY R3 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.38/14 MEASURING 0.30 GUNTAS AND LAND BEARING SY.NO.40/5 MEASURING 0.13 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HADIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THYMAGOUNDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE C AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless of the text of the prayer is as to non-extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.

¶23

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioner’s claim squarely falls within

¶24

¶25

WP No. 6694 of 2023

¶26

General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act; accordingly, he has already 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.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB and permits the Petitioner to file a representation seeking enhancement compensation 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 within the General Award category.

¶28

It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Final Notification dated 11.08.2021 in lieu of compensation as per Annexure-B to the Petition.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 6694 of 2023

¶31

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

¶32

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping open all contentions.

¶33

No costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

cbc

Sri. Nagaraju v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraju v. Vs 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

Victor Simon Vs State of Karnataka

Madhuri P. Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.Lokesh Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Limited

Sri.Ramalingeshwara Math Harnahalli(Not Regd) Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. B.V. Siddaiah Vs Sri. Kariyaiah

Mrs T G Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka