IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.19021/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN:
SHRI. M. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ADINARAYANA HOSAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203.
... PETITIONER [BY SRI SRIHARI H.V., ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2 THE KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD No.14/1, ARAVINDA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit ad-idem that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016, wherein, in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 it is observed thus:-
“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.”
3. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of in similar terms. Annexure – A is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The respondent No.3 shall determine the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1996.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR