IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.804 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, No.49, 5th floor, Khanija Bhavan, East Wing, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Reptd., by its Secretary (By Sri.B.B.Patil, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Maridevamma W/o Late Mallegowda, Aged 70 years, R/at Door No.68, 6th Cross, Hosabeedi, Kumbarakoppal, Mysuru-573 301.
2. The Special L.A.O., Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Mysuru – 273 301.
…Petitioner …Respondents (By Sri.Krishnamurthy.G.Hasyagar, Advocate for R1; Notice to R2 not necessary V/o dated 6/1/2017) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2016 in LAC 70/2013 at Annexure-C passed by the Hon’ble Learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The important question of law raised in this matter relates to maintainability of the writ petition for challenging the judgment and award made by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the amount of compensation payable to the land owners has been enhanced without hearing the beneficiary of acquisition, who ultimately has to shell out the amount.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to that in W.P.Nos.34665/2017 (LA-KIADB).
2A. This question has been authoritatively answered by this Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2018 made in W.P. No.55485/2017 C/W W.P. No. 11178/2016, whereby, the judgment and award of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation have been set at naught and the matter has been remanded for consideration afresh, within an outer limit of four months.
3. The essential fact matrix of this matter also being substantially similar to the one in the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioner herein being similarly circumstanced needs be granted similar relief, there being no factors militating against the same.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 09.02.2016 made by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in LAC No. 70/2013, vide Annexure-C; the matter is remanded for consideration afresh, after hearing all the parties including the petitioners herein, within an outer limit of four months. All contentions are left open.
The petitioner shall deposit the differential of the amount to match 50% of the amount payable under the award which would include all statutory additions also, within a period of two weeks before the concerned Court where upon the respondent No.1-land looser shall be entitled to seek release of the same in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-