IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.23846/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AVVERAHALLI VILLAGE BILLANAKOTE POST SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S.MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ARAVIND BHAVAN, OPP.RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ARAVIND BHAVAN, OPP.RBI NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OFFICE-II, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2 TO R-4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMUGNED NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 (1) OF KIADB ACT 1966, ISSUED BY THE R-1 DATED 29.12.2012 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF KIADB ACT, 1966, AND NOTIFICATION DATED 31.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER’S LAND IS CONCERNED AS ILLEGAL ERRONEOUS ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD RESULTING IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notifications issued by the respondent No.1 dated 29.12.2012 and 31.08.2018 passed under Section 28[4] of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 in so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.05.2019 in accordance with law.
2. As could be seen from the representation dated 03.05.2019 at Annexure-F, it is the grievance of the petitioner that consent award sought for determining the compensation relating to the lands in question at Rs.70,00,000/- per acre is not just and reasonable and if the quantum of compensation is fixed at Rs.1,10,00,000/- per acre, the writ petition shall be withdrawn.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded towards the acquisition of the lands in question. Hence, no writ petition is maintainable. However, it is fairly and rightly submitted that if the petitioner is not agreeable for the consent award, general award shall be passed in accordance with law and no possession of the petitioner shall be disturbed until the general award is passed by the respondents.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2019 at Annexure-F and take a decision in the matter in an expedite manner in any event not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and is ordered accordingly.
5. If the petitioner is not agreeable for the consent award, general award shall be passed in accordance with law. In such an event, the petitioner is at liberty to seek for enhancement of compensation, if aggrieved by the general award, if any, to be passed by the respondent authorities, before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
NC.
Sd/- JUDGE