IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3373/2018 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN :
RANGASWAMY B.M., S/O LATE MAGADAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT #004, WHITE ROSE MARWELL APARTMENT, SURABHI LAYOUT, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU 64. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAREDDY K.N., ADV.) AND :
1 . THE C.E.O & EXECUTIVE MEMBER KIADB OFFICE-2, NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB OFFICE-2, NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-R.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 16.9.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to pay the balance compensation of Rs.36 lakhs towards the acquisition of land of the petitioner with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of acquisition till realization.
2. This is the second round of litigation as far as the petitioner approaching this court claiming the compensation of Rs.36 lakhs towards acquisition of his lands in Sy.No.No.74/P3 of Bandikodigehalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is concerned.
3. In W.P.No.9630/2013 this Court directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.8.2012 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pursuant to which, the endorsement dated 16.9.2017 has been issued rejecting the request of the petitioner for awarding additional compensation of Rs.36 lakhs. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that similarly situated persons have been awarded with compensation of Rs.40 lakhs per acre where the lands are not closely abutting the National Highway as that of the petitioner herein. But the petitioner has been discriminated awarding only Rs.31 lakhs per acre.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16.3.2017, survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the survey report indicates that the lands of the petitioner in question are not abutting the Airport Road. A decision was taken by the Price Advisory Committee fixing Rs.40 lakhs for the lands in Sy.No.No.74 abutting the Airport Road and Rs.31 lakhs for other lands. In view of the same, the petitioner’s land coming under the category of other lands, compensation of Rs.31 lakhs has been fixed which has been duly disbursed by virtue of the consent award in terms of the consent agreement. The petitioner having agreed for the rate of Rs.31 lakhs per acre, now cannot challenge the said consent award.
6. There is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The petitioner having agreed for the consent award and accepted the compensation of Rs.31 lakhs per acre, now cannot plead that the value of lands has to be determined at Rs.40 lakhs per acre. The survey report also suggests that the properties are not abutting the Airport Road. If so, the compensation determined at Rs.31 lakhs in terms of the decision of the Price Advisory Committee, cannot be faulted with.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE