IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.5356 OF 2015 [LA-KIADB] BETWEEN:
SMT. H.M. PREMA, WIFE OF MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.55, ‘SURYACHANDRA’, 2ND CROSS, CHANNAPPA LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO.2, RASTHROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BAIKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575 104.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNTAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 41732 OF 2013 DATED 21.04.2014.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.41732 of 2013 by the learned single judge in rejecting the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The petitioner represented by the power of attorney holder was appointed by the respondent-KIADB. It had executed a power of attorney, inturn entered into an agreement with KIADB and received compensation. Thereafter the petitioner sought for enhancement seeking reference by the impugned endorsement. The same was rejected on the ground that the amount was received under a consent agreement. The same was challenged before the learned single judge. It was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
4. However, on hearing appellant’s counsel, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Having executed the power of attorney, the question of going behind it and seeking for enhancement of compensation would not arise for consideration. The power of attorney has not been questioned. There is no dispute that the power of attorney holder has entered into an agreement. Therefore, what the KIADB has done is purely in accordance with law and in pursuance to the power of attorney executed by the appellant. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. also stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc