Quashed

Smt Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2024WP/9382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed general award passed by KIADB due to pending suit among family members. Directions issued to pass consent award upon withdrawal of suit within six months or restore award if suit continues.

What did the court decide?

General award No.KIADB/LAQ/1389/2021-22 quashed; KIADB directed to pass consent award if original suit withdrawn within six months; award to be restored on default.

Smt Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24178 WP No. 9382 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.9382 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE B.R. RANGASHAMAIAH, W/O DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/19, SHRI. REVENNASIDDESHWARA NILAYA, BEHIND SHIDEVI BAKERY DABASPET, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.

¶8

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

¶9

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE B.R. RANGASHAMAIAH, W/O PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT BARAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOUMPUR HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI B.R. GARUDAIAH S/O LATE B.H. RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, 2nd 'A' MAIN, 4th CROSS, LAKSHMIDEVI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 096.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24178 WP No. 9382 of 2022

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4th AND 5th EAST WING, 5th FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, SHANTI GRUHA, 4th FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

SMT. SWARANAMMA D/O LATE B.H. RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH, W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.307 TUNGA CLINIC ROAD, 3rd B CROSS, RAJAGOPALA NAGAR, PEENYA 2nd STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶19

SMT. GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE B.H. RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH W/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.T - 4 KRITAN ASTA APARTMENT

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24178 WP No. 9382 of 2022

¶21

NEO TOWN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE -1, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGLAURU-560 099.

¶22

SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE B.H. RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH W/O LATE K.R. GAVI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT 1158/A, 9th CROSS, MAHESHWARI NAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 058.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R.1; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3; SRI V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO R.6.)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.LAQ(BEM):/1374/2021-22 DATED 25.02.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE GENERAL AWARD BEARING NO.KIADB/LAQ/1389/2021-22 DATED 02.03.2022 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The case of the petitioners is that their lands were

¶29

acquired for the purpose of respondent no.2/Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short).

¶30

It is submitted that the family of the petitioners consisted

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24178 WP No. 9382 of 2022

¶32

of nine siblings and respondent no.2/KIADB has paid compensation to four of the siblings in respect of their share concerned by way of a consent award, but they are refusing to grant compensation in respect of the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 herein.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, upon instructions, submits that as there is a suit pending between the family members of the petitioners, compensation has not been paid to them and by mistake, compensation by way of consent award was paid to four members of family of the petitioners and he further submits that if the suit is withdrawn, then in that event, consent award in respect of other family members also will be passed.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 to 6 submits that respondent nos.4 to 6 herein have filed a suit against other family members and he would take necessary steps to withdraw the same.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24178 WP No. 9382 of 2022

¶36

In the light of the undertaking given by respondent nos.4 to 6, the general award bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/1389/2021-22 dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to pass a consent award and award compensation to the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 as per their entitlement provided the original suit No.210/2013, which is stated to be pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, amongst the family members is withdrawn within a period of six months from today.

¶37

If the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 fail to get the suit withdrawn or if there is any further dispute raised by anybody with regard to title, then in that event, the general award will stand restored.

¶38

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

hkh.

Smt Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Rhea Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Raj Alkaa Park

Mr. Mohsin Sharieff Vs Sri N Ramesh

Sri.Dev.v. Kotian Vs Smt. Jayashree a Bakshi

Smt S Gowramma Vs Chief Secretary

Smt S Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Reddappa B Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer