IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 42683/2018 & WRIT PETITION NO. 56980/2018 (LA-KIADB) Between:
1. Jayaram Reddy S/o Annaiah Reddy Aged 70 years Residing at No.57/5, 9th Cross, Sir V.V.Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore-560008.
2. Muni Reddy S/o Annaiah Reddy Aged 68 years Residing at No.57/5, 9th Cross, Sir V.V. Road, Bommanahalli Bangalore-560008. …Petitioners (By Sri P.N. Rajeshwara, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Commerce and Industries Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, By its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member # 14/3, II Floor, R.P.Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore- 560001.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Metro Rail Project I Floor, R.P.Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-560001. ... Respondents (By Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2 & R3) .
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in No.KIADB/METRO/BUSWA/R5-167A/2016-17 which is produced at Annexure-H in so far as it relates to the property of the petitioner is concerned and etc., These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The grievance of the petitioners, who claim to have lost the land in acquisition for the benefit of respondent No.2- KIADB is that the acquisition in question ought to have been treated as having been done with the agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and this having not been done, they are before this Court for quashing of the general award dated 30.06.2018 at Annexure-H.
2. Sri Dildar Shiralli, learned HCGP and Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned Panel counsel on record have appeared respectively for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 & 3. They oppose the writ petition stating that factuals are to be ascertained and a limited enquiry has to be launched in the matter.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of these writ petitions is substantially similar to the one in cognate Writ Petition No.14109/2015 disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2016 wherein relief has been granted to the similarly circumstanced land losers by directing the respondent-KIADB to treat the acquisition in question as having been made in accordance with Section 29(2) of the Act only for the limited purpose of re-determination of the compensation and payment thereof to the land losers, in a time bound manner.
In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the General Award dated 30.06.2018 at Annexure-H; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to treat the acquisition as the one made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act only for the limited purpose of re- determining the compensation and paying the same to the land losers, subject to there being no title dispute.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR