Partly allowed

Smt. Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024WP/15746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a general award for land acquired by KIADB. Court quashed the award pending ownership proof, directing SAO to reconsider subject to consent award under Act Section 29(2).

What did the court decide?

Impugned general award set aside; respondent directed to reconsider for consent award under Section 29(2) within three months; deposit withdrawal liberty granted.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22653 WP No. 15746 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 15746 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, V.G. TEMPLE ROAD, VENKATAGIRIYAPPA LAYOUT, DODDA BOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 099.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DHARSHAVARDHAN B.G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

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

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:22653 WP No. 15746 of 2024

¶17

NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 28.03.2024/03.04.2024 IN NO.KIADB/KEM.KA/BHOOSWA/2454-P/194/2023-24 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SO FAR IT RELATES TO PETITIONER LAND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that her land in Survey No.27 measuring 1 Acre of Geddalahalli Village, Sompur Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, was acquired for the purpose of respondent No.2/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Further, respondent No.3 has passed a general award and deposited the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22653 WP No. 15746 of 2024

¶25

compensation in the Reference Court. She prays that consent award be passed in respect of the said land.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that they have no objection to pass a consent award provided the petitioner produces all the relevant documents to show that she is the owner of the property.

¶27

Under similar circumstances, this Court in umpteen number of cases has permitted the land losers to claim compensation as per the consent award upon establishing the fact that they are the owners of the property. There is no reason why a similar order should not be passed in the instant case also.

¶28

Hence, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The impugned general award dated 28.03.2024/03.04.2024 at Annexure-C to the

¶31

writ petition insofar as the land of the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:22653 WP No. 15746 of 2024

¶34

petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, is set aside;

¶35

(ii) The respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶36

of the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for award of

¶37

compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶38

(iii) The respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by it pursuant to the general award before the jurisdictional Court;

¶39

(iv) It is needless to state that, in the event the petitioner failing to provide necessary documents to establish her ownership over the land concerned or if there is a dispute as to ownership, the general award would stand restored;

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:22653 WP No. 15746 of 2024

¶42

(v) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK

Smt. Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nagarathna v. 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

Surya @ Suryaprasad Vs K Palachandra

Vasathi Avante Apartment Owners Vs M/S Anu Builders and Developers

Lydia Priyadarshini Vs Sri. Balakrishna G

Sri D Mohan Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Karthik K N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suma Vinod Vs Sri. Haridas Salian