IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.48118/2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN AKKAMMA W/O. BHYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) R/AT ADINARAYANA HOSAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTSRICT, PIN : 561203 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARATMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560001.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER 2 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 & 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner relates to the acquisition of his land not being treated as the one with agreement as contemplated under Sec.29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. The petitioner contends that in identical circumstances pursuant to several orders of this Court, the respondent-KIADB has treated the general award acquisitions as the ones with agreement and therefore the same treatment has to be meted out to the petitioner herein too.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli as also the learned panel counsel for the respondent-KIADB do not dispute that the subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.39611 & 39612 of 2016 (LA_KIADB) disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016. Therefore, there is force in the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the similar relief needs to be granted in this case too.
3. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in terms of the decision cited above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 17.11.2017 at Annexure-A so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioner only for the purpose of determination and payment of the compensation as if the award is by agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act, leaving the vested title to the land in the respondent-KIADB, otherwise unaffected.
Time for compliance is three months. Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE GJM