IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.NO.6488 OF 2019 (LA KIADB) BETWEEN MALLESH. C, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O CHANNIGAIAH, R/AT CHAKENAHALLI, YEDYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.P.C.VINITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.A.KARUMBAIAH) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 1.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 1.
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 1. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE GENERAL AWARD DTD 26.12.2013 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS RE-DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 29(2) OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966 AND TO PAY THE COMPENSATION SO FIXED TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is against the treating of the acquisition of the land in question as being covered by the General Award dated 26.12.2013 at Annexure – C, when it ought to have been treated as the acquisition by agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.Nos.57100-57101/2016 (LA-KIADB), disposed off by this court vide judgment dated 06.12.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E.
3. The learned HCGP Sri.Dildar Shiralli and learned Panel Counsel for the KIADB Sri.Pradeep Kumar, together submits that there would be no much difficulty in considering petitioner’s representation for treating the acquisition in question as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) in the light of the various decisions of this court provided petitioner gives a representation furnishing all material particulars. The prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, and the stand of the respondents is reasonable and fair.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 which shall duly consider the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date the said representation is made.
Costs made easy.
SD/- JUDGE cbc