IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 12634 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
CHIDANANDA K N S/O NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KOLALUKUNTE VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ, KIADB, TUMKUR-572 101.
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PASS THE ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 21.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 06.02.2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The land in question was the subject matter of acquisition that culminated into a General Award dated 20.12.2013 which came to be modified as award in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966 vide judgment dated 02.08.2014 in W.P. No.30876/2014(LA-KIADB) that was filed by grandfather of the petitioner herein.
2. On the above factual matrix , the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent – SLAO of KIADB on 06.02.2018 at Annexure-F requesting for treating the acquisition in question as the one made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and further to award compensation accordingly. The said representation having remained unconsidered, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of Writ Court.
3. The respondent having entered appearance through its Panel Counsel Sri. Vijaya Kumar opposes the writ petition. Having opposed it initially, now he fairly submitted that there would be no difficulty for consideration of petitioner’s representation, if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for accomplishing the said task and also if the petitioner cooperates by participating in the enquiry for ascertaining all the factuals. The request of the petitioner is innocuous and stand of the respondent is fair.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent – SLAO to consider petitioner’s representation dated 06.02.2018 at Annexure-F within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and further to make known to the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.
It is open to the respondent-SLAO to solicit any further information or any relevant documents required for due consideration of the said representation subject to the rider that no delay would be brooked in that guise.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv