Disposed

Sri. Yallapparaju v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023WP/6795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a general award refusing enhanced compensation under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. The High Court allowed a consultation on Section 29(2) benefits pending uniformity while permitting a claim in lieu of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit under Section 29(2) of the Act.

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

¶1

1 - WP No. 6795 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. YALLAPPARAJU V, S/O VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HODIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 132.

¶9

SRI. RUDRANAGARAJU, S/O VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5^TH CROSS, BADDIHALLI VILLAGE, VTC, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKURU - 572 104.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SOMASHEKAR V, S/O VEERANNA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT HADIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 132.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT. MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 6795 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD., NO 14/3, C F C BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN, I FLOOR, N R 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 BEARING NO.KIADB.LAQ NO.976/2022-23 DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.39/1A MEASURING 2 ACRES 21.08.00 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HADIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGOUNDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT OF PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – C AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

WP No. 6795 of 2023

¶28

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.

¶29

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by contending that the petitioner's claim squarely falls in General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of 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

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

WP No. 6795 of 2023

¶34

the KIADB even when the case fell in the General Award

¶35

category.

¶36

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

¶37

It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Government Notification dated 07.12.2022 in lieu of compensation as per Annexure-C to the Petition.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping

¶39

open all contentions.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Bsv

Sri. Yallapparaju v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Yallapparaju 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

Sri S K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

The Official Liquidator of Vs Sri.Prakash Lachman Ahuja

M/S. Omkar Estates Private Limited Vs Smt. T. S. Banu

Himalayan Basha @ Ahesan Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. M. Govindappa Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Smt. B.R. Smitha Vs State of Karnataka