IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.40896/2017 (LA-KIADB) Between:
Sri. Bhyraiah, S/o Bhyraiah, Aged about 51 years, Residing at, Hulisidegowdanadoddi Village, Bannikupe Dakale, Haroahalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura-562117. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Mahendra N, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Chairman, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, No.3/2, Kheni Building, 3rd Floor, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560009.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer-1, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Having its office at No.14/3, 1st Floor, Maharshi Aravind Bhavan, Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru-560001. ... Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1; Sri. B.B.Patil, Advocate for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dated 31.12.2013 passed by the R-3 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of petitioner properties bearing Sy.No.1174/2018 measuring 12 guntas, situated at Bannikuppe village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District vide Annexure-E and etc., This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Sri. Dildar Shiralli, learned HCGP appears for respondent No.1.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the pleadings, submits and the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-KIADB having accepted notice for the respective respondents on request, do not deny that the subject matter of this writ petition is akin to the one in cognate Writ Petition No.31702/2018 (LA-KIADB) that has been disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2018 and therefore, similar relief be granted to this petitioner as well.
3. The judgment in the aforesaid cognate writ petition at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 reads as under:
“2. The learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned Panel counsel for the respondent-KIADB are broadly in agreement that the fact matrix of this writ petition matches with that in W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016 . The paragraphs 2 and 3 of the decision passed in W.P.No.39611- 39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) reads as under:-
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. There is an assurance from the side of the respondent-Government and the respondent KIADB that petitioner’s representation shall be considered in terms of paragraphs-2 and 3 of the decision cited above for treating the said acquisition as the one made with the consent of the land owner for the purpose of payment of compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 within a reasonable period.”
4. In view of the above, writ petition succeed in terms of the decision cited in the judgment mentioned above; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned award dated 31.12.2013 at Annexure-E so far as it relates to subject land of the petitioner only for the limited purpose of re-determination and payment of compensation as if the acquisition is by agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
5. Time for compliance is three months, subject to petitioner furnishing required information and documents as may be solicited by respondent No.3- Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board.
6. It is needles to mention that if there is a title dispute in relation to the subject land, then the order now quashed shall stand revived subject to result thereof.
Sd/- JUDGE RB