IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.No.9169 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) Between:
K.Munirevanna, S/o Late Karisidappa, Aged 67 years, R/at: House No.6, Shanthi Nivas, Near Maruthi Glass an Playwood, Thalaghattapura, Kanakapura Main Road, Bengaluru – 560109.
(By Sri. Jagadish Baliga.N., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Commerce and industries, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560001.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer – 1, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Maharshi Arvind Bhavan, 1st Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
3. Metro Rail Corporation Limited, BMTC Complex, 3rd Floor, K.H.Road, Shantinagar, ... Petitioner Bengaluru – 560027, By its Managing Director.
(By Sri.B.J.Eswarappa, AGA for R1 Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R2 Sri.K.Krishna, Advocate for R3) ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dated 25.04.2016 passed by the R2 in respect of 17 sq. mtrs of and in Sy.No.16/3, Thalagattapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru of the petitioner is concerned which is produced as Annexure-G etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner submits and all the learned counsel appearing on the other side do not dispute that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is similar to the one in cognate Writ Petition Nos.39611-39612/2016(LA-KIADB), disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2018.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since in the cognate Writ Petition, the relief has been granted to the litigants therein by directing the respondent KIADB to treat the acquisition as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act, 1966, the petitioner being similarly circumstanced needs to be granted similar relief. The relevant paragraphs 2 & 3 in the cognate judgment read as under:
2. ‘Section 29(2) of ‘KIADB 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.”
3. In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds in terms of the cognate judgment cited above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 25.04.2016 at Annexure-G to the extent it compromises the petition property, only for the limited purpose of determination and payment of compensation, treating the acquisition as the one under Section 29(2) of the Act, within a period of three months.
It is needless to mention that if there is any title dispute in relation to subject land, the award compensation shall be released after the settlement of the said dispute in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE NS