Dismissed

Smt Padma v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/3766/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a direction to KIADB to release compensation for acquired land, relying on a specific performance decree and an unfulfilled compromise. KIADB contended the notified khathedar was a different Munivenkatappa. The court found petitioners had not established entitlement to the property and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; all options kept open to petitioners to seek remedies available under law.

Smt Padma Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31034 WP No. 3766 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3766 OF 2021 (GM-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT PADMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE K.G.SRINIGASA MURTHY,

¶8

MS. SUSHEELA K.S. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O LATE.K.G.SRINIVASA MURTHY,

¶9

MS.BHUVANA K.S. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE K.G.SRINIVASA MURTHY,

¶10

SRI.RAVITEJA K.S. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G.SRINIVASA MURTHY

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE R/O DOOR NO.26, 5^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, OPP. DTI GOWRIPET, KOLAR CITY-563 101.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.39, SHANTHIGRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:31034 WP No. 3766 of 2021

¶19

SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGRICULTURIST, APPASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. LOKESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-A THE REPRESENTATION DATED:28.12.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE R-1.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to the respondent No.1-KIADB to release the compensation amount in respect of land in Sy.No.10, situated at Appasandra Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas which was notified for acquisition by KIADB in terms of notification dated 07.08.2006.

¶27

Case of the petitioners is that the original petitioner one Sri.K.G.Srinivasa Murthy, husband and father of the petitioners 1 to 4 respectively had entered into agreement of sale with respondent No.2 on 22.05.1998 in respect of the

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31034 WP No. 3766 of 2021

¶29

acquired land and he had filed a suit in O.S.No.426/1999 against respondent No.2 seeking relief of specific performance and the said suit was decreed by Judgment and decree dated 12.06.2003. That since the land in the meanwhile was acquired, an execution petition was filed against respondent No.2 herein. It is submitted that since in the suit while mentioning survey number of the property an error had crept in whereby instead of mentioning Sy.No.10, it was mentioned as Sy.No.110. As such, a compromise was entered into between the original petitioner and respondent No.2 to share the compensation to be paid by KIADB. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits despite the above respondent No.2 retracted from the compromise. Accordingly the execution petition was closed leaving the petitioners in a lurch. Hence, the petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.1-KIADB drawing attention of this Court to the notification, more particularly referring to the details of acquired land at Sl.No.10 of the said notification, submits that the name of the person notified in the said notification is Munivenkatappa S/o Muneappa while name of the vendor of the original petitioner K.G.Srinivasa Murthy is

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31034 WP No. 3766 of 2021

¶32

Munivenkatappa S/o Kenchappa. That neither the original petitioner K.G.Srinivasa Murthy nor said Munivenkatappa, S/o Kenchappa are notified as khathedars or the owners of the property in the said notification. Thus, he submits even if the case of the petitioners were to be considered they should first resolve and establish their entitlement over the property. That not having been done directions in the matter cannot be issued.

¶33

Heard and perused the records.

¶34

There is no dispute of the fact that suit in O.S.No.426/1999 was filed by K.G.Srinivasa Murthy, husband and father of the petitioners respectively in respect of the land in Sy.No.110 against Munivenkatappa, S/o Kenchappa for relief of specific performance. A decree as sought for was also passed. It appears that only when the execution petition was initiated the parties realized the mistake in mentioning survey number and an attempt was made to correct the survey number. The next issue with regard to entitlement of sharing of compensation was also resolved by entering into a compromise which since did not fructify resulted in closure of the execution petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:31034 WP No. 3766 of 2021

¶37

It is in these factual background present petition is filed with correct survey number of the property seeking direction to respondent No.1 to release the compensation amount.

¶38

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-KIADB unless and until petitioners establish their right and entitlement over the property, given the facts narrated herein above, the respondent-KIADB cannot be directed to consider the representation at Annexure-A.

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioners is unable to point out from the records as to whether the property and parties to the agreement stated to have been entered into indeed pertain to the details referred to at Sl.No.10 of the notification.

¶40

Petition lacks merits. Hence, dismissed, keeping open all the options to the petitioners to avail such remedy as may be available under law, if so advised.

¶41

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶42

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Smt Padma v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padma v. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

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

Sri H Ananthakumar Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt. Bramarambha Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Sri. v. Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Krishna Murthy Vs M Manohar

Smt B Rani Vs the Assistant Commissioner and President