IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT Writ Petition Nos.48115-48117/2018 (LA-KIADB) Between:
1. Shri. Ramesh B., S/o Bhyrappa, Aged about 50 years, 2. Shri. B. Srinivasmurthy, S/o Bhyrappa, Aged about 45 years, 3. Smt. B.Padmavathi, D/o Bhyrappa, Aged about 40 years, All are residing at Adinarayana Hosahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 561 203. (By Sri. Srihari A.V., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. By its Secretary.
... Petitioners 2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, East Wing, Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 001.
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer – 2, The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, No.14/1, Aravinda Bhavan, 1st Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1;
... Respondents Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for R2 and R3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the general award dated 17.11.2017 bearing no.Bengaluru/ViBhuSwaAa-2/ /2017-18 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure – A and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Dildar Shiralli, learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The grievance of the petitioners relates to the acquisition of their lands not being treated as the one with agreement as contemplated under Sec.29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. The petitioners contend that in identical circumstances pursuant to several orders of this Court, the respondent-KIADB has treated the general award acquisitions as the ones made with agreement and therefore the same treatment has to be meted out to the petitioners herein too.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts and the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli as also the learned panel counsel for the respondent- KIADB do not dispute that the subject matter of these writ petitions is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.39611 & 39612 of 2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016. Therefore, there is force in the submission of the petitioners’ counsel that the similar relief needs to be granted in this case too.
4. In view of the above, these writ petitions succeed in terms of the decision cited above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 17.11.2017 at Annexure-A so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners only for the purpose of re-determination and payment of the compensation as if the acquisition award is by agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act, leaving the vested title to the land in the respondent-KIADB, otherwise intact.
Time for compliance is three months. Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-