Allowed

Mrs. Ammannamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024WP/21923/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner challenged a general award fixing compensation for her acquired land on the ground she was absent at the hearing. Following prior decisions, the court allowed the petition, set aside the general award, and directed the SLAO to reconsider compensation by agreement.

What did the court decide?

General award dated 09.03.2021 set aside; petitioner entitled to similar relief as in cited cases.

Mrs. Ammannamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:704 WP No. 21923 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21923 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. AMMANNAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKAMARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT CHEELURU VILLAGE & POST, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK,

¶9

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 121.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶14

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.39, 4TH FLOOR, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.3; SRI VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:704 WP No. 21923 of 2023

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION, TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 09.03.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY.NO.127 MEASURING 2 ACRE 21 GUNTAS OF CHEELUR VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a general award has been passed only on the ground that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for award of compensation. Learned counsel submits that this Court has held in several matters including the recent decision in the case of Harisha.R /vs./ State of Karnataka and

¶26

others in W.P.No.12703/2023 dated 27.06.2023 following an earlier decision in W.P.No.6198/2015, that the land loser would be entitled for a better price as

¶27

compensation instead of as determined under a general award. As a consequence all such matters where it was

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:704 WP No. 21923 of 2023

¶30

found that a general award was passed only on some technical ground that the land loser was not present at the

¶31

time of hearing or such other technical reasons, this Court was of the considered opinion that since the land loser would get a better price if the compensation is awarded in terms of the agreement and not under a general award, the award may be passed in terms of an agreement. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that similar benefit should be given to the petitioner.

¶32

On going through several of the following judgments which were rendered by this Court:

¶33

i) Smt. Rukmani v/s State of KarnatakaW.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 dated 16.09.2016;

¶34

ii) Sri.Basavaraju vs. State of KarnatakaW.P.No.34071/2017 dated 28.08.2017;

¶35

iii) Sri.Rajanna vs. State of KarnatakaW.P.No.51362/2016 dated 21.03.2018;

¶36

iv) Smt.Ningamma vs. State of KarnatakaW.P.No.6198/2015 dated 25.08.2015;

¶37

v) Sri.Bhyraiah vs. State of KarnatakaW.P.No.40896/2017 dated 24.01.2019;

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:704 WP No. 21923 of 2023

¶40

vi) Sri.Narasimhamurthy vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.16220/2023 dated 31.07.2023;

¶41

this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner

¶42

is entitled for similar relief as was given in the cases mentioned above.

¶43

Consequently, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned general award dated 09.03.2021 at Annexure-K insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned is set aside.

¶47

(iii) The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for award of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

(iv) 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.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:704 WP No. 21923 of 2023

¶51