Petitioners challenged KIADB acquisition proceedings on grounds of lapsed proceedings and non-payment of compensation. Court held petition not maintainable as petitioners received compensation. Writ petition dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed as the prayer made does not survive for consideration.
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:50532 WP No. 374 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
HASSAN - 573 211.
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
KARYALAYA EXTENSION, KARANJIKATTE, HOLENARSIPURA - 572 311, HASSAN DISTRICT.
W/O G P ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O GANGURU, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABYAGATHAVALLI POST, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK - 573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT.
R/O KALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK - 573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT.
W/O K S PREMKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KALLIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK - 573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT.
KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK - 573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT.
SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE KODIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O OF SHEREGARANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK - 573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:50532 WP No. 374 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN TERMS OF SECTION 3(1) OF THE ACT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-X AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.3.2007 ISSUED BAY THE R-1 IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 28(1) OF THE ACT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Z AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN TERMS OF SECTION 28(4) OF THE ACT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-AB SO FAR S THEY RELATE TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
NC: 2024:KHC:50532 WP No. 374 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners herein are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondentKarnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, KIADB) on the ground that, the acquisition proceedings has been lapsed for not passing the award and not paying the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:50532 WP No. 374 of 2022
V.T.KRISHAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported
in ILR 1991 KAR 1183 , wherein, it is stated that, the writ petition is not maintainable challenging the acquisition proceedings, if the claimant has received the compensation from the respondent-authorities.
NC: 2024:KHC:50532 WP No. 374 of 2022
referred to above that the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings is maintainable when the petitioners have already received compensation under a consent award.
Whether the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed despite the claim of non-payment of compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.T. KRISHAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARelied on¶63
V.T. KRISHAMOORTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
G.H. NAGARAJ AND OTHERS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SRI. CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGARS LTD.
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
