Allowed

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/11465/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners challenged an award notice fixing compensation for land acquired by KIADB for industrial development, seeking payment of compensation fixed by consent under Section 29 of the KIAD Act. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical matter, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the award notice and directed reconsideration under Section 29(2).

What did the court decide?

Award notice (Annexure-C) quashed; award dated 25.09.2020 set aside; respondent No.2 to consider petitioners under Section 29(2) KIAD Act; deposited amounts to be withdrawn and disbursed to petitioner

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

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45664 WP NO.11465 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11465 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶9

CHANNAMMA

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR.

¶11

KUMAR S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DODDADASARAHALLI JADAGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GEDDALAPURA TARABAHALLI, JADAGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 560 067.

¶15

SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BHAKTHARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45664 WP NO.11465 OF 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD NOTICE DATED 17^TH DECEMBER, 2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FIXING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,74,51,540/- VIDE ANNEXURE-C; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION FIXED BY CONSENT UUNDER SECTION 29 AS PER ANNEXUREF; AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the Award Notice dated 17^th December, 2020 issued by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45664 WP NO.11465 OF 2023

¶31

respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the subject land belongs to petitioners; inter alia sought for direction to the respondent-Authorities to pay compensation fixed by consent under Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act , (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act').

¶32

Heard Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. C. Channegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 .

¶33

Having Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioners claim to be owners of the subject land and the said land has been acquired by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of industrial development.

¶34

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in an identical matter of similar nature in Writ Petition No.13463 of 2022 decided on 15^th July, 2022, allowed the writ petition and direction has been issued to the respondent-Karnataka

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45664 WP NO.11465 OF 2023

¶36

Industrial Area Development Board to consider the case of the petitioners therein under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition also deserves to be allowed on the same terms, as the petitioners herein are seeking for the identical relief. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

1. Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶39

Award Notice dated 17^th December, 2020 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of the property of the petitioners is hereby quashed, consequently the Award dated 25^th September, 2020 (Annexure-F) is set-aside;

¶40

Respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act upon the petitioners satisfying all the requirements thereof;

¶41

In the event of there being any adverse claim with regard to subject land belonging to the petitioners, prior to the disbursal of the amount, the Award Notice will be revived automatically;

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:45664 WP NO.11465 OF 2023

¶44

1. Respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to withdraw the amount in deposit before the competent Court, if any, and disburse to the petitioners in terms of the observation made above in accordance with law.

¶45

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶46

ARK

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma 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

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

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Jemcy Ponnappa C P Vs State of Karnataka