Disposed

Smt. K. S. Lalithamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2023WP/8354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the land acquisition award. The Court, finding the claim fell under the General Award, directed petitioners to file a representation for enhanced compensation if accorded in similar cases and also allowed a claim for developed land in lieu of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file representation for enhanced compensation under Section 29(1966) and for developed land in lieu of compensation.

Smt. K. S. Lalithamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8354 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8354 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. K. S. LALITHAMMA, W/O LATE G.SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/AT NO. 29, K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-DISTRICT-570 016.

¶10

SRI.JAYADEV.S, S/O LATE G.SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO. H I G 968, NEAR VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, JT EXTENSION MYSORE DISTRICT-570 023.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT.H.S.KANTHAMANI, W/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.1, OMKAR NILAYA, 11^TH CROSS, S.P OFFICE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, TUMKUR DITRICT-572 102.

¶14

SRI.S.NANDEESH, S/O LATE G. SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 29, K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-DISTRICT-570 016.

¶15

SRI.S.NATESH, W/O LATE G.SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶16

WP No. 8354 of 2023

¶17

¶18

R/AT NO. 29, K.R.S. RAOD, METAGALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-DISTRICT-570 016.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SMT. KUMUDA T A.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

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

¶23

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXEAUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶24

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER NIMZ, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE, TUMKUR-572 103.

¶25

NOTE: PETITIONERS ARE JOINT FAMILY AND ASKING FOR THE SAME RELIEFS.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

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

¶28

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.NO/2013-14 DTD 20.12.2013 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 9/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 23 GUNTAS, OUT OF WHICH 3 ACRES 06 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT SANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST, OF PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-C AND ETC.,

¶29

¶30

WP No. 8354 of 2023

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The short grievance of the Petitioners, regardless of the text of the prayer is as to non-extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas 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.

¶34

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioners’ claim squarely falls within General Award Category and not under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act; accordingly, they have already received the entire compensation amount; therefore, they cannot be

¶35

¶36

WP No. 8354 of 2023

¶37

granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶39

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court being broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits the Petitioners to file a representation seeking enhancement of 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.

¶40

In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off keeping open all contentions.

¶41

It is open to the Petitioners to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Final Notification dated 23.07.2010 in lieu of compensation as per

¶42

¶43

WP No. 8354 of 2023

¶44

Annexure-B to the Petition. If such a representation is

¶45

made, KIADB would consider the same within a period of

¶46

three months in accordance with law.

¶47

Costs made easy.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

cbc

Smt. K. S. Lalithamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. S. Lalithamma 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

Sri K S Yadiyur Sidalingeswara Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Shankaranna Vs the State of Karnatak a

Mr. M. Mahadevaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Yes Bank Limited Vs Nel Holdings South Limited