Disposed

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer -2

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024WP/28581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquired by KIADB was claimed by both petitioner and private respondents while a title suit was pending before the Civil Court. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioner's objections, take into account the pending suit, and issue notice to both sides before disbursing compensation.

What did the court decide?

KIADB directed to decide taking into account pending OS.No.231/2022; no disbursement until objections considered; notice to both sides before disbursal.

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 28581 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE A. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT STEGEWEG 27, 13407-BERLIN, GERMANY.

¶8

ALSO R/AT NO. 25, II FLOOR, SHOPPING STREET, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. ADARSH. N, S/O. LATE A. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT STEGEWEG 27, 13407-BERLIN, GERMANY.

¶11

ALSO R/AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2, BANGALORE AND BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

SRI. A VINAY, S/O A. ANJANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, GROUND FLOOR, SHOPPING STREET, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶19

SRI. A. VIJAY, S/O. A. ANJANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, GROUND FLOOR, SHOPPING STREET, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.N. SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE R-1 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, BANGALORE AND BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶24

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 TO PASS GENERAL AWARD IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 125, NEW SY.NO.125/2, MEASURING 10.22 ACRES, SITUATED AT KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, RAJAGHATTA MANDAL PANCHAYTH, KASABAHOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶29

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue of writ of mandamus to the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, KIADB), to pass award and to deposit the compensation, before the Civil Court as there is dispute with regard to title to the land in question.

¶30

It is submitted by Sri. R.Subramanya, learned

¶31

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Subramanya H.V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the land in question

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶33

has been acquired by the respondent-KIADB and the private respondents are trying to secure the compensation amount and as such, the legitimate rights of the petitioner will be jeopardise despite the fact that, suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court in OS.No.231/2022 (Annexure-B), to the writ petition.

¶34

Per contra, Sri. G.Krishnmurthy, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 has contended that, the writ petition itself is not maintainable seeking writ of mandamus, as the authorities have to pass award and as such he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶35

the case of STATE OF KERALA Vs . SMT. A.LAKSHMIKUTTY

¶36

AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 4 SCC 632 and submitted that, the writ petition is premature on the ground that, identical application has been filed before the Trial Court in OS.No.231/2022, by the petitioner, restraining the respondentKIADB not to disburse the amount and also he referred to the application at Annexure-R3, to the statement of objection and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶39

Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that, notice has been issued to both the parties including all interested parties, seeking compensation in respect of the subject land is concerned and KIADB is yet to take decision in the matter and accordingly, sought for disposal of the writ petition.

¶40

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that, the land in question has been acquired by the respondent-KIADB to form industrial layout. However, the grievance of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 is with regard to disbursal of the compensation in respect of the subject land. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the suit in OS.No.231/2022 (Annexure-D) is pending consideration before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District in which, the relief sought for by the plaintiff therein, is with regard to declaration with consequential relief.

¶41

In that view of the matter, in view of pendency of the suit before the Competent Civil Court adjudicating the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:49786 WP No. 28581 of 2024

¶44

rights of the parties in respect of the subject land is concerned. I am of the view that, as the petitioner herein has already filed objections at Annexure-F to the writ petition, the respondent No.1 is directed to take decision in the matter, taking into consideration pendency of the suit, as well as the title in respect of the property in question is yet to be adjudicated therein.

¶45

It is also made clear that, the respondent-KIADB shall not disburse the amount unless the objections filed by the petitioner herein is considered in accordance with law.

¶46

After considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein, the respondent-KIADB is directed to issue notice to both sides before disbursing compensation.

¶47

With this observation, writ petition is disposed of .

¶48

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer -2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pushpa Malekal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Ganesh Anjappa Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt. Usharaju Vs the Commissioner

Smt v Lakshmidevi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka