Allowed

Smt Shivamma S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/32880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged a general award passed by the KIADB Special Land Acquisition Officer for her land despite having consented to a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The High Court quashed the general award and directed the Board to consider her case under Section 29(2).

What did the court decide?

General award quashed; KIADB directed to consider case under Section 29(2) KIAD Act and disburse deposited amount; general award revives if adverse claim arises before disbursal.

Smt Shivamma S Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50382 WP No. 32880 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.32880 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. SHIVAMMA S. W/O SAGAIRAJ, D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.25/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, MOHANKUMAR NAGARA, YASHWANTHAPURA, VTC BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT - 560022.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. ASHWINI P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NO.14/3. II FLOOR, R. P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:50382 WP No. 32880 of 2024

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER NEAR SIT MAIN GATE TUMKUR - 572103.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO. SLAO/KIADB/TU/NO.22809/2023-24 DATED 16/12/2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.18/1 MEASURING 0-11¹ /2 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT TANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶20

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the general Award dated 16.12.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in respect

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:50382 WP No. 32880 of 2024

¶26

of the subject land, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶27

Having taken note of the factual aspects on record, as the petitioner has consented for passing of consent Award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and in view of the catena of decisions of this Court allowing similar writ petitions, this writ petition is required to be allowed.

¶28

3. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1) Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶31

General Award dated 16.12.2023 passed by the respondent - SLAO in respect of the land of the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed;

¶32

Respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act upon the petitioner satisfying all the requirements thereof;

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:50382 WP No. 32880 of 2024

¶35

1. In the event of there being any adverse claim with regard to subject land belonging to the petitioner prior to the disbursal of the amount, the General Award will be revived automatically;

¶36

1. Respondent No.2-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is directed to withdraw the amount in deposit before the competent Court, if any, and disburse to the petitioner in terms of the observation made above in accordance with law.

¶37

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶38

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt Shivamma S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shivamma S 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

Kenchegowda Vs Smt Dr P Marutham

Munishamanna. B Vs the State of Karnataka

Subramani B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi P Vs the Commissioner

Sri Rajesh R Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri Channappa B M Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority