Disposed

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/5645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's land was acquired by KIADB via a general award with compensation deposited. The court set aside the general award and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider compensation by consent award under Section 29(2), subject to the petitioner establishing ownership; failing which the general award stands restored.

What did the court decide?

General award dated 28.06.2023 set aside; SLAO to reconsider compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) KIADB Act within three months.

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22209 WP No. 5645 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 5645 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SAROVAR BADRINATH, S/O. LATE S.B. MADHAVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO. 38, ASHIRVAD SWEET HOME LAYOUT, MAILASANDRA, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VARUN R.R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

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

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:22209 WP No. 5645 of 2024

¶17

MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, B.M.I.C. P.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RANSA VASANTHI D.L, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 28.06.2023 BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/2023-24 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SURVEY NO.93 MEASURING TO AN 1 ACRE 12 GUNTAS OUT OF THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 8 ACRES 27 GUNTAS SITUATED AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 1 Acre 12 Guntas out of the total extent of 8 Acres 27 Guntas in Survey No.93, situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Kundana Hobali, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural, which was acquired by respondent No.2-Karnataka

¶24

Industrial Areas Development Board for the purpose of Establishment of an Industrial Area. Further, respondent

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22209 WP No. 5645 of 2024

¶26

No.3 has passed a general award and deposited the compensation in the Reference Court. He prays that consent award be passed in respect of the said land.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that they have no objection to pass a consent award provided the petitioner produces all the relevant documents to show that he is the owner of the property.

¶28

Under similar circumstances, this Court in umpteen number of cases has permitted the land losers to claim compensation as per the consent award upon establishing the fact that they are the owners of the property. There is no reason why a similar order should not be passed in the instant case also.

¶29

Hence, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The impugned general award dated 28.06.2023 at Annexure-A to the writ petition insofar as the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:22209 WP No. 5645 of 2024

¶34

land of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, is set aside;

¶35

(ii) The respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶36

of the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for award of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶37

(iii) The respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by it pursuant to the general award before the jurisdictional Court;

¶38

(iv) It is needless to state that, in the event the petitioner failing to provide necessary documents to establish his ownership over the land concerned or if there is a dispute as to ownership, the general award would stand restored;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:22209 WP No. 5645 of 2024

¶41

(v) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT: BHK

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath 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

Sri S Rajagopala Reddy Vs Paramahamsa Reddy

Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Mohan Kumar.M Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Mr T Dejappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri T a Gurubalaji Vs State of Karnataka