Allowed

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024WP/34681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the General Award passed for their acquired land, seeking a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the General Award, directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider consent award terms, with revival on adverse claims.

What did the court decide?

General Award quashed; SLAO directed to consider consent award under S.29(2) KIAD Act and disburse deposit to petitioners.

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52608 WP NO.34681 OF 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34681 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.N. VENUGOPALA REDDY S/O B.V. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, GROUND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS, SECTOR 6, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶9

SMT. B.N.LAKSHMI @ SANJEEVAMMA W/O B.L. NARAYANA REDDY, D/O. B.V. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.65/2B/18-90, SITE NO.18, 14^TH CROSS, VIRATNAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶10

B.N. PREMA

¶11

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

¶12

D/O B.V. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.48/2, A.T. STREET, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:52608 WP NO.34681 OF 2024

¶19

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

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 1^ST FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 31^ST OCTOBER, 2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY MEASURING 36.19 SQ. MTRS. BEARING KHATA NO. 367/34/268 KHATA NO. 367/340/268/2 AND KHATA NO. 367/340/268/4 SITUATE AT WARD NO.175 (OLD WARD NO.13) IN BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGURU-1 HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:52608 WP NO.34681 OF 2024

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1; Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3; and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.4

¶30

In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the

¶31

General Award dated 31^st October, 2017 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of subject property belonging to petitioners.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for parties.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioners are seeking for passing of the consent award for having acquired their property by

¶35

the respondent-Authorities. In that view of the matter, as this Court, in a catena of decisions, had quashed the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:52608 WP NO.34681 OF 2024

¶38

general award and direction was issued to the respondent-

¶39

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to consider the case of the petitioners therein under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, I am of the view that, the present petition deserves to be allowed on the same terms. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

1. Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶42

General Award dated 31^st October, 2017 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the subject property belonging to petitioners is hereby quashed;

¶43

Respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act upon the petitioners satisfying all the requirements thereof;

¶44

In the event of there being any adverse claim with regard to subject property belonging to the petitioners, prior to the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:52608 WP NO.34681 OF 2024

¶47

disbursal of the amount, the General Award will be revived automatically;

¶48

Respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to withdraw the amount in deposit before the competent Court, if any, and disburse to the petitioners in terms of the observation made above in accordance with law.

¶49

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶50

ARK

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy 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

Smt Sumathi Sharada Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Pratesh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri T Srinivasulu Vs the Commissioner

Sri Syed Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B H Honnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

T.B.R. Boranna Vs State of Karnataka