IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.5534 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
Chikka Thimmaiah S/o Venkatappa, Aged about 45 years, R/o Ramanahalli Village, Channarayapattana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri. Shivareddy K.N., Advocate) AND:
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB Office-2, No.14/3, 1st Floor, Maharshi Aravinda Bhavan, C.F.C. Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-01.
…PETITIONER 2. The State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries, M.S. Building, Bengaluru-01.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. H.L. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R-1; Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct against the respondent No.1 for disbursing the compensation award amount of the land in dispute to the petitioner by considering the representations as per Annexures-O and Q and with interest at the rate of Rs.24% for the delay caused by the respondent No.1.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is listed for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group.
2. Petitioner has sought a direction to the first respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bengaluru, to consider his representations dated 20.09.2008 (Annexure-O) and 15.09.2009 (Annexure-Q) in the matter of disbursement of compensation concerning acquisition of land measuring 14 guntas in Sy.No.63 situated at Jonnahalli Village, Channarayapattana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the non-
disbursement of compensation in respect of the aforesaid land. Therefore, he made a representation as per Annexures-O and Q, referred to above, but the first respondent has not considered the said representations. In the circumstances, the petitioner has sought a direction for consideration of those representations in accordance with law and within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for first respondent and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
5. Although petitioner has averred several factual aspects in the memorandum of writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that his representations at Annexures-O and Q have not yet been considered in the matter of disbursement of compensation with regard to the acquisition of the aforesaid land.
6. In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner herein is to direct the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.09.2008 (Annexure-O) and 15.09.2009 (Annexure-Q), in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to pass detailed order in that regard and also to communicate the same to the petitioner herein.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC