Allowed

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/10313/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs not notified in KIADB acquisition proceedings challenged the consent award fixing compensation payable to private respondents. With respondents consenting to re-deposit amounts, the court set aside the award and directed the matter to the Civil Court for adjudicating apportionment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Consent award dated 09.11.2023 set aside; respondents Nos.4-7 to re-deposit compensation with KIADB within 2 months for deposit before the Civil Court to adjudicate apportionment.

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10313 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JAYAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. B. K. KEMPAIAH, AGED 71 YEARS, SNIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED, RESIDING AT NO. 34, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KRISHNANANDNAGARA, K.H.B COLONY, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶8

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. K. KANTHAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M D., AGED 63 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED, RESIDING AT NO.16, 3RD CROSS, DEVAPPA GARDEN, NEAR N. S. HALLI BUS STOP, NAGASHETTIHALLI, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶10

SMT. SHARADA, WIFE OF SRI. NARASIMHMURTHY, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.175, M.N.T LAYOUT, NEAR POLICE STATION, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 562 162.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. ANITHA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ADN INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDAH, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP BY ITS CHARMAN.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 14/3, 1ST FLOOR, RASHROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR V, SON OF LATE VENKATAIAH T K, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, 1ST MAIN RAOD, KAREKALLU KAMAKSHIPALYA, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶20

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR V., SON OF LATE VENKATAIAH T K, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, 1ST MAIN RAOD, KAREKALLU KAMAKSHIPALYA, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶21

SRI. SATEESH KUMAR H,

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶23

SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.880, GANAPATI TEMPLE ROAD, NGO'S COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶24

SRI. MANOJ KUMAR H, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDIG AT NO.880, GANAPATI TEMPLE RAOD, NGO'S COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. P. V. CHANDRASHEKAR., FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. MANMOHAN P N., FOR R4 AND R5; SRI. S. G. HEGDE., R6 AND R7)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/AWARD DTD 09.11.2023 PASSED BY THE R-3 MADE IN NO. KIADB/LAQ/4037/2023-24, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the award dated 09.11.2023, passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-A), inter alia sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to recover and re-deposit the compensation from respondent Nos.4 to 7 and to consider the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶33

representation dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-E) to the writ petition.

¶34

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners' grandfather-Late Kempaiah, was the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.66/3 to an extent of 35 Guntas and to an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.221 of Obalapura Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It is contended in the writ petition that the writ petitioners are also the legal heirs of deceased Late Kempaiah, along with the private respondents herein. Therefore, as the petitioners were not notified insofar as writ petition proceedings are concerned as well as passing of the award made by the respondent-KIADB and as it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are also entitled for compensation from the respondent–KIADB and as such, the petitioners have presented this writ petition challenging the award dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure A).

¶35

Heard Smt. Anitha N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri. P. V.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶37

Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri. Manmohan P N, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri. S. G. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶38

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for

¶39

the petitioners that, though the petitioners herein are also legal heirs of the original owner of land in question and without the consent of the petitioners, the respondent-KIADB, without considering representation made by the petitioners, has passed the impugned award dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-A) under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and determined the compensation to be payable to the private respondents and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶40

It is submitted by Sri.S G Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.6 and 7 that there is no impediment for identify the shares of petitioners as such and in this regard, he submitted that, the private respondents are ready to determine the compensation to be payable to the petitioners herein. In the event, if their share has been made known to the respondents herein and therefore, he sought for

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶42

dismissal of the writ petition. In this regard, he filed a memo dated 29.10.2024 and submitted that, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 sought for disposal of writ petition keeping open the contentions of both the parties with regard to determine the compensation in terms of the memo dated 29.10.2024.

¶43

It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, in view of the discussion held with the petitioners, the respondents have agreed that they shall re-deposit a sum of Rs.26,35,416/- within two weeks from today towards the alleged share of the petitioners. Therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court for further determination in the matter.

¶44

The submission made by the Sri.P. N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have compromised with the petitioners insofar as disbursement of amount is concerned. Accordingly, he sought for bifurcation of the award amount to be payable to the petitioner and therefore, he sought for disposal of the writ petition.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶47

Sri. P V Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-KIADB submitted that the compensation has been disbursed in favour of private respondent Nos.4 to 7 in terms of the award dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-A) and further he submitted that as the respondent-KIADB has to pay approximately Rs.39,96,200/- to the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.4 and 5 jointly, which is the balance amount available with the KIADB. Therefore, there is no impediment insofar as the amount, which is already paid insofar as the respondent Nos.4 to 7 is concerned. Accordingly, he submitted that, in view of the lying of the amount as stated above with the KIADB is concerned, in the event if certain amount is being re-deposited by the private respondents, then the dispute be resolved and accordingly, sought for disposal of the writ petition.

¶48

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that the parties are agilating their rights insofar as the apportionment of compensation is concerned.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶51

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as the dispute has been raised by the legal heirs of the original owner-Late Kempaiah, insofar as the disbursal of the compensation is concerned, I am of the view that, the impugned consent award passed by the respondent-KIADB dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-A) is to be set aside and the respondent-KIADB be directed to, refer the matter to the Civil Court for further action in the matter insofar as disbursal of compensation is concerned. It is made clear that, it is the Civil Court alone is to determine the rights of the parties, in light of the observation made above. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶54

ii. In view of setting aside the consent award dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-A), the private respondent Nos.4 to 7 are hereby directed to re-deposit the amount before the respondent No.3-KIADB. In turn, the respondent-KIADB shall deposit the same before the Civil Court

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:45831 WP No. 10313 of 2024

¶57

for adjudication with regard to the

¶58

apportionment of compensation is concerned.

¶59

iii. The private respondents are directed to redeposit the amount within a period of 2 months from the receipt of this order.

¶60

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶61

AMA

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Magadi Taluk Agricultural Produce Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.M. Somanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

K Narayan Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant Provident

Jemcy Ponnappa C P Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka