IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT W.P.NO.42684 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN RAVINDRANATH REDDY T, S/O TIMMA REDDY, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.57/5, 9TH CROSS, SIR V.V. ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560008. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJESWARA P.N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, METRO RAIL PROJECT, I FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 VIDE ANNX-D IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be the land loser, has called in question the General Award dated 31.10.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure – D contending that the acquisition ought to have been the one with agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and that having not been made, he is aggrieved.
2. Learned AGA Sri.B.J. Eswarappa and Learned Senior Panel Counsel Sri.K. Krishna on request, having accepted notice for the respondent-State and Respondent No.3 and Sri.H.L. Pradeep Kumar, having accepted notice for 2nd respondent-KIADB fairly submits that, in all other similar matters, relief has been granted to the land loosers. However, they reserve liberty to ascertain the fact matrix asserted in the Writ Petition.
There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who banks upon the judgment dated 25.08.2015 made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 (LA- KIADB), Paras 2 & 3 whereof read as under:
“2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the ‘KIAD Act’ provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed. General Award Annexure-A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. A direction shall ensue to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the ‘KIAD Act’ to be complied with as expeditiously as possible ….”.
3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition on the principle of parity succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 31.10.2017 at Annexure – D to the extent it comprises the petition land only for the limited purpose of re-determination and paying the compensation treating the acquisition as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) of the Act, keeping in view the observations made in the cognate judgment, above; the vesting of title of the respondent-KIADB to the land in question, is otherwise left intact.
4. It is needless to mention that the payment of compensation as re-determined shall be deferred till after the title dispute to the land in question, if any, is determined in accordance with law.
5. If the compensation amount in respect of the land in question is already deposited before the jurisdictional Court, it is open to the respondent-KIADB to take steps for its retrieval so that the same is released to the land owner in terms of this judgment.
Time for compliance is eight weeks. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc