IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.36284/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MASTENA HALLI KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125 3. SMT.JANAKAMMA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SMT.VEENA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BASATTIHALLI KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561205 5. SRI V.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT MASTENA HALLI, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI C.BABU, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER No.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, No.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 24.06.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 WHICH IS PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-D IT RELATES TO PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS IN LAND BEARING SY.NO.52/2, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT 14 GUNTAS AND 1 GUNTA KARAB TOTAL 15 GUNTAS AND LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT 12 GUNTA AND 1 GUNTA KARAB TOTAL 13 GUNTAS AND LAND BEARING SY.NO.52/4, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT 21 GUNTAS AND 2 GUNTAS KARAB TOTAL 23 GUNTAS, BOTH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED AT MASTENA HALLI, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the general award dated 24.06.2017 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to the property of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 bearing Sy.No.52/2, measuring to an extent of 14 guntas and 1 gunta karab, total 15 guntas and land measuring to an extent of 12 guntas and 1 gunta karab, total 13 guntas in Sy.No.50/1B and land bearing Sy.No.52/4, measuring to an extent of 21 guntas and 2 guntas karab, total 23 guntas as well as land bearing Sy.No.51/1, measuring to an extent of 13 guntas including 1 gunta of Karab land belonging to petitioner No.5 situated at Mastena Halli village, Kaiwara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.
2. In identical circumstances, in W.P.Nos.22311-22316/2016 (D.D. 06.09.2016), this Court has placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 disposed of on 25.08.2015, wherein it has been held as under:-
“Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30th December 2013, Annexure-A, of the 3rd respondent- Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.444 of Cheeluru village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that her claim for determination of compensation ought to be by way of an agreement under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’) since willing to the enter into an agreement after having obtained a compromise decree dated 6.12.2014 in O.S.126/2013 whereunder the property in question is declared to be the absolute property of the petitioner.
2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the ‘KIAD Act’ provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed. General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. A direction shall ensue to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the ‘KIAD Act’ to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 31st October 2015. It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is no dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved.”
Following the said decision, the general award relating to the survey number therein has been set aside.
3. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the general award at Annexure – D dated 24.06.2017 in respect of survey numbers aforementioned is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of KIAD Act, keeping in mind the order referred to above.
4. Compliance within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent No.3 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit in the Civil Court.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR