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. 14742 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SMT JAYAMMA W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, M/O. YELLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT #, 53, ARAHALLI GUDDADAHALLI, BASETTIHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TQ, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203. AADHAAR NO. 220143983673 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. B S SHRIKANTHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERECE AND INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4TH 5TH LOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KIADB., NO.4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BNGALORE, KARNATAKA-560001.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE GENERAL AWARD ON 31.12.2013 UNDER SEC. 29(3) OF THE KIADB ACT, PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 125, MEASURING 3 ACRES 02 GUNTAS SITUATED AT ARAHALLI GUDDADAHALI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEX-A;
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is similar to the one in W.P.Nos. 39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016, paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 whereof reads as under:
2. “Section 29(2) of ‘KIAD Act’, provides for determination of compensation by way of agreement. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to such a consideration since it is stated that by agreement, petitioners would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of a determination by way of a general award. In addition, it is stated that there would be a finality to the acquisition proceedings and also for settlement of compensation since petitioners would be disentitled to challenge the same and to seek for higher market value/compensation. Therefore, there is a need to interfere with the general award at Annexure-F in so far as petitioners are concerned.
3. In the circumstances, these petitions are allowed. General award at Annexure-F on so far as it relates to petitioners, is quashed. A direction shall ensue to the third respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to consider the case of the petitioners for determination of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this order is applicable if there is no dispute to title to the immovable property acquired and if there is one, then the general award in so far as petitioners are concerned will stand restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount in relation to the aforesaid land, if deposited in the Civil Court. No costs.”
2. The assertion of the petitioner is not much disputed by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent – KIADB. However, he enterers a caveat that the official respondent – SLAO should be permitted to ascertain the factuals as to the matchablitiy of petitioner’s case with that in the aforesaid cognate judgment.
3. In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the General Award dated 24.04.2017 to the extent it comprises the petition property at Annexure-A only for the limited purpose of re-determination of payment of compensation treating the said acquisition as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the KAD Act, 1966 subject to the same terms and conditions as are contained in the aforesaid judgment.
The title of the respondent-KIADB otherwise is left intact. If the compensation is already deposited with the Civil Court in furtherance of the award in question, the respondent – KIADB shall take all steps for retrieving the said compensation so that the same shall be released to the petitioner in terms of this judgment.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv