Disposed

S.P.Velayutham v. the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/21638/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A land acquisition compensation dispute concerning land in Sy.No.12, Nagasandra village acquired for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project. The parties settled: petitioner agreed to receive the difference between package compensation and general award amount, foregoing interest. The petition was de-linked and disposed recording the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed recording settlement; petitioner to receive difference between BMRCL package compensation and KIADB general award amount, foregoing interest claim.

S.P.Velayutham Vs the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2 — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34355-DB WP No. 21638 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 21638 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S.P. VELAYUTHAM S/O LATE SABAPATHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.5, SABARI SALAI MADIPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 091

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M.J. ALVA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

REGIONAL OFFICE NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

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

¶18

BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD REP. BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 3^RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:34355-DB WP No. 21638 of 2014

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE F OR R1; SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R2; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT No.KIADB/Metro/ LAQ/50/2014-15 DATED 26.04.2014, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1, AS PER ANNEXURE-'A' AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this writ petition can be de-linked from the batch of matters it is listed with. It is further submitted that the matter stands settled between the parties since the respondent No.3 has agreed to pay a package compensation for which the petitioner has no objection.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:34355-DB WP No. 21638 of 2014

¶31

A letter dated 19.08.2024 issued by the BMRCL is

¶32

also produced and paragraph No.1 of the said letter reads as under:-

¶33

"The State Govt. had acquired 4 acres of land in Sy.No.12 of Nagasandra village for Bangalore Metro Rail Project vide notification U/s 28[4] CI 112 SPQ 2010, Dt.11.03.2010 read with corrigendum No.CI 48 SPQ 2013 Dated: 30.04.2013, BMRCL had sent a compensation package to SLAO, KIADB on 10.05.2013 determining the compensation payable U/s 29[2] to be Rs.25,72,40,873/-. However, due to dispute regarding the ownership of acquired land, compensation U/s 29[2] could not be paid. Subsequently, general award was passed by SLAO, KIADB on 13.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.17,32,63,902/and the said amount was deposited in the Civil Court and a reference was made U/s 30 & 31 of LA Act 1894 for determination of the ownership of the acquired land. The Civil Court has disposed of the said reference vide its order dt. 04.09.2021 wherein, it is held that, you are eligible for compensation in respect of 4 acres in Sy.No.12 of Nagasandra village.

¶34

Meanwhile, you had filed a writ petition No.21638/2014 wherein, you have requested the Hon'ble court for issue of directions for payment of

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34355-DB WP No. 21638 of 2014

¶36

compensation as per the package along with the interest of 12% per annum. The said writ petition is still pending for disposal. However, during the pendency of the writ petition you have given a letter referred to above, wherein you have agreed to forgo the interest as demanded in the writ petition and have further agreed to receive the balance amount as per the package after deducting the amount of award received by you from the Civil Court."

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

the BMRCL has agreed to pay the difference amount between the package compensation and the amount determined as per the general award by the KIADB and that the petitioner is willing to accept the said difference amount and settle the matter. It is submitted that there is no appeal pending against the order of the Court dated 04.09.2021.

¶39

The said submission is recorded.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:34355-DB WP No. 21638 of 2014

¶42

The writ petition is de-linked and disposed of

¶43

recording the agreement between the parties as evident

¶44

from the letter dated 19.08.2024.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶48

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

S.P.Velayutham v. the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Velayutham v. the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

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

Sri Santhosh Kiragi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mamatha a v Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt. Meghashri Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra Swain and Co. Vs M/S Skl Grapes

M/S. Green Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri. Maruthi. H

I B M India Private Limited (Substituted) Vs Mr Shreans Daga