IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.No.55965 OF 2018 (LA KIADB) BETWEEN SRI. RAMANJANAPPA. H, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, CHIKKAGATTIGANABBE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, D.G. NABBE POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 114. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.ABHINAV. R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI.DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE 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 DATED 24.06.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the respondent-KIADB in not treating the acquisition in question as being the one under section 29 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, even when the offer of compensation made by the respondent-KIADB was accepted by him.
2. The learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Dildar Shiralli and learned Panel Counsel Sri.K. Krishna on request having accepted the notice, opposed the Petition stating that the credentials of the petitioner need to be ascertained.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30875/2014 submits that in identical set of facts, this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2014 has directed the KIADB to consider the claim of the land losers as the acquisition with agreement as contemplated under section 29 (2) as contradistinguished from the acquisition under the General Award. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“5. Accordingly, the general award dated 20.12.2013 stands quashed in so far as the compensation awarded in relation to the site belonging to the petitioner. A direction is issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for award of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act. The said exercise shall be completed in an expeditious manner.”
There is no reason do deviate from this beaten track there being no derogatory circumstances.
4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; the impugned General Award to the extent it relates to Petition lands is set at naught for the purpose of redetermination and payment of the compensation by treating the acquisition is by agreement under section 29 (2) of the said Act, leaving the vested title to the land in the respondent-KIADB otherwise intact. The time for compliance is three weeks.
5. It is needless to mention that if the respondent-KIADB has already deposited the compensation amount in the Reference Court, the same amount shall be withdrawn by the SLAO of the KIADB so that the same can be appropriated for payment of the compensation to be determined in terms of this direction.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc