Disposed

Sri a N Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024WP/26874/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought quashing of a general award for his acquired land and a consent award instead. Respondents had no objection subject to proof of ownership. The Court set aside the general award and directed the SLAO to consider compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) KIAD Act within three months.

What did the court decide?

General award set aside; SLAO directed to consider consent award under Section 29(2) KIAD Act within three months.

Sri a N Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40932 WP No. 26874 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 26874 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. A.N. RAJANNA S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.166, 10^TH MAIN, NARASEEPURA LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 097

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARAN N.MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:40932 WP No. 26874 of 2024

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/BhuSwa-2//2020-21 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.46/1 MEASURING 10-3/4 GUNTAS, SITAUTED AT AVVERAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that his land in Sy.No.46/1, measuring to an extent of 10-3/4 guntas of Avverahalli Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk was acquired for purposes of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). However, respondent no.3 has passed general award and deposited the compensation

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40932 WP No. 26874 of 2024

¶25

in the Reference Court. He 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 he is the owner of the properties.

¶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 06.02.2021 at Annexure-F to the writ petition insofar as the lands of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, is set aside;

¶31

(ii) The respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for award of compensation by

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40932 WP No. 26874 of 2024

¶33

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 copy of this order;

¶34

(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;

¶35

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

¶36

(v) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶38

PGG

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri a N Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a N Rajanna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kanakaraj Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri S Venkatesh Vs M /S Rao Bahaddur Gubbi

Sadashiva Kulal Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Syed Mustafa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Verghese Stephen Vs Bangalore Development Authority