Disposed

C Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023WP/6978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, petitioners challenged the refusal of enhanced compensation under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The Court permitted the petitioners to file a representation to the KIADB to claim such benefit, directing the Board to consider it within three months if similar cases had been accorded enhanced benefit.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a representation for enhanced benefit under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act, with the KIADB to consider it within three months.

C Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6978 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6978 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶9

RAMYA KRISHNAPPA, D/O C KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶10

ANIL KUMAR, S/O C KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ARCHANA K, D/O C KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3, 4^TH CROSS, D V G ROAD, NAGASHETTYHALLI, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 094. PETITIONER NO.1 HAS NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

WP No. 6978 of 2023

¶21

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

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

¶25

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/202021, DTD 02.03.2021 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The short grievance of the Petitioners, regardless of

¶29

the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to nonextension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas 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

¶30

¶31

WP No. 6978 of 2023

¶32

KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.39611-39612/2016 (LA-

¶33

KIADB) disposed off on 16.09.2016.

¶34

Learned AGA appears for the 1^st Respondent

¶35

and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB vehemently oppose the Petition contending that the petitioners’ claim squarely falls in General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of the Act; they have already accordingly received entire compensation; therefore, they cannot be granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is although broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AGA and the Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits the petitioners 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

¶38

¶39

WP No. 6978 of 2023

¶40

been accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell in the General Award category.

¶41

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

¶42

It is open to the Petitioners to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Government Notification in lieu of compensation.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping open all contentions.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Bsv

C Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Krishnappa 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

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Society for Child and Women Empowerment

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S. Kerala Fashion Jewellery

Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust Vishwa Needam Farm Vs State of Karnataka

Padma K Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Siddagangamma Vs State of Karnataka