IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29292/2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI. K. S. PARAMESHWARAIAH, S/O. LATE K. R. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. 170/B, 1ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 011. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NIJALINGAPPA M.E., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER, #14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE, TUMKUR-572 103. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E. S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1, SRI P .V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DTD.30.11.2013 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.76 MEASURING 4.00 ACRES, SITUATED AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-C AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER SEC. 29(2) OF THE KIAD ACT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDES THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, office objection is ignored.
Sri Nijalingappa M.E., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The subject matter of this writ petition is land bearing Sy.No.76 measuring 4 acres situated at Nagenahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur District. A general award as per Annexure ‘C’ dated 30.11.2013 was made by the third respondent in respect of the said property along with several other survey numbers.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is agreeable to receive the compensation in respect of the aforesaid land from respondent Nos.2 and 3 in terms of Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short).
4. In an identical case in W.P.No.6198/2015 disposed of on 25.8.2015 (between SMT.NINGAMMA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS), this Court has set aside the general award and permitted the parties to receive the compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. It has been held as under:
“Petitioner is assailing the General Award dated 30th December 2013, Annexure-A, of the 3rd respondent- Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) insofar as it relates to 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.444 of Cheeluru village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, on the premise that her claim for determination of compensation ought to be by way of an agreement under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’) since willing to the enter into an agreement after having obtained a compromise decree dated 6.12.2014 in O.S.126/2013 whereunder the property in question is declared to be the absolute property of the petitioner.
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 within an outer limit of 31st October 2015.
It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is any dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved.”
5. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the general award at Annexure ‘C’ dated 30.11.2013 in respect of the aforesaid survey number is hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of KIAD Act. Compliance within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit in the Civil Court, if any.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE RD