Partly allowed

Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024WP/24499/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a General Award for land acquisition. The court set aside the General Award and directed the officer to determine compensation via a consent award agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.

What did the court decide?

The General Award is set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to award compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within three months.

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:3195 WP No. 24499 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 24499 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGARAJU, W/O. LATE. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, P. GOLLAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 128.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NIMZ, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:3195 WP No. 24499 of 2021

¶17

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE, TUMKUR - 572 103.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GENERAL AWARD DATED 26.07.2019 BEARING NO: Vi.Bhu.SWA.AA/KIADB/THU/3467/2019-20 PASSED BY R-3, QUA PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Certain lands of the petitioner in Survey No.66, situated at P.Gollahalli Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk and District, were acquired for the purpose of respondent No.2 and a General Award has been passed and the amount has been deposited in the Reference Court.

¶24

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the proceedings before respondent No.3 for determining the compensation. He has not challenged the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:3195 WP No. 24499 of 2021

¶27

General Award. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to challenge the proceedings conducted before respondent No.3 but only prays that the compensation be given to him as per the provisions of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, wherein he has given consent for acquisition and for receiving the Consent Award.

¶28

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection for paying the amount as determined by the consent award to the petitioner. His submission is placed on record. Hence, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The General Award passed in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the writ petition is set aside.

¶31

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner and award

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:3195 WP No. 24499 of 2021

¶34

compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

iii. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by him pursuant to the General Award before the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

iv. Needless to state that in the event of any dispute, the General Award stands restored.

¶37

v. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK

Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju 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

K Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. C Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmidevamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Balakumar Vs Smt. Manjula S

Sri Keshava Reddy v Vs the Commissioner