Petitioner sought a direction to KIADB authorities to decide her application for compensation in terms of earlier judgments in W.P. No.47161/2018 and W.A. No.1844/2019. The Court held the impugned notice was contrary to those orders and directed KIADB to issue notice to all parties and decide compensation entitlement accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:45166 WP NO.3641 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.3641 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODA VEERAMAYANNA W/O H.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.31375, NEUMA DRIVE, CATHEDRLA CITY, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. - 92234. REP. BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B.G. VASUDEV S/O B.P. GOPALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, BRIGADE PARK VIEW, B.P. WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:45166 WP NO.3641 OF 2023
NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SRI. K.S. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO PASS ORDERS IN APPLICATION NUMBER KIADB/METRO/BHOOSWA/ R3C/53/642/ 2022-23 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.47161/2018 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1844/2019 MARKED AS ANNEXURES 'E' AND 'F',; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to
the respondents 2 and 3 to pass appropriate order in terms of
NC: 2024:KHC:45166 WP NO.3641 OF 2023
the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.47161 of 2018 and Writ Appeal No.1844 of 2019 vide Annexures 'E' and 'F' respectively in respect of the entitlement of the parties to receive compensation.
"6. Regular First Appeal NO.1764/2007 was preferred against the decree of the trial Court. Under the said decree, a share was provided to the fist respondent.
A review petition was filed by the first respondent seeking review of the consent decree in the appeal. In fact, while disposing of the review petition, the Division Bench of this Court accepted the fact that the first respondent had a share in the property. Paragraph 7 of the said order in the review petition reads thus:
"7. On hearing learned counsel, we are of the view that share of the review petitionerdefendant No.7 was identified in para 42 of 1/40th share along with defendant Nos.5 an d8 in the suit properties except plaint schedule 'G' property. Therefore, we are of the view that until and unless a decree was obtained by the petitioner, the question of entertaining the plea of the review petitioner would be a futile exercise, since even though the share of the petitioner has been identified by the trial Court, the same has not culminated into a decree."
7. The Division Bench observed that the first respondent is entitled to get a share but she can get the share only after securing a decree, in any case, the first respondent was not a party to the compromise in Regular First Appeal No.1764/2007 and hence, the said compromise is not binding on her. The decision of the Apex Court in Bimal Kumar (supra) will not help the appellant especially when in the review petition filed by the first respondent, the Division Bench accepted that she has a share.
8. As regards the last submission, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been incorporated in the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1963. It is for this reasons that the learned Single Judge observed that the entitlement of the
parties to a compensation will be decided by the Civil Court in a reference for apportionment.
Hence, we find no error in the impugned judgment and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
"5. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and leaving / keeping the same open, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the concerned respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.272/2020 c/w W.P.No.358/2020 dated 15.07.2021, after hearing the petitioners, 5th respondent and all other concerned parties and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law.
NC: 2024:KHC:45166 WP NO.3641 OF 2023
disbursement of compensation, and therefore, the Notice dated 27th January, 2023 (Annexure-M) was issued by the respondent-KIADB, is contrary to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Therefore, I am of the view that, it is open for the respondent-KIADB to issue notice to all
the parties concerned and take decision in the matter in the light of observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1844 of 2019 decided on 29th August, 2019. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the KIADB notice dated 27.01.2023 on disbursement of compensation was contrary to prior court directions requiring hearing of all parties.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT. YASHODA VEERAMAYANNA (rep. by GPA holder B.G. VASUDEV)
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB-METRO
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT OFFICER, KIADB-METRO
SMT. B.V. SMITHA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
