IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.NOs.54178-54179 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN SRI. RUDRAIAH, S/O LATE DODDEERANNA @ DODDEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT YALADADLU VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIJALINGAPPA M E, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, MARUTHI TOWER, NEAR SIT MAIN GATE, TUMKUR – 572103. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1 & 2; SRI.P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DTD:19.11.2013 PASSED BY R-3 IN RESPECT OF BEARING SY NO.78/4 MEASURING 2 ACRE 11 GUNTAS, AND SY NO.76 WHICH IS NEW NUMBER 76/P2 MEASURING 0-39 GUNTAS, OF YALADUDLU VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRCIT BELONGING TO PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader and learned Panel Counsel Sri.B.V. Chandrashekar appearing for the opposing parties, do not dispute that the subject matter of these Writ Petitions is akin to the one in W.P.No.25834/2018 disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2018; this apart, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that these judgments comprise the land in very same survey number, is also not disputable, going by the material on record. .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the aforesaid judgment submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief, there being no derogatory factor warranting deviation therefrom. The learned counsel for the beneficiary of acquisition and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader Sri.Dildar Shiralli fairly submit that the petitions may be disposed off in terms of the said judgment which has been followed in several other matters, too.
In view of the above, these Writ Petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the general award bearing No.KIADB:LAQ 2013-14 dated 19.11.2013 made by the 3rd respondent comprising the petition lands and that the said award shall be treated as having been passed with agreement in terms of provisions of Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 only for the limited purpose of re-computation of the compensation amount.
A Writ of Mandamus issues directing the 3rd respondent to treat the said acquisition as having been made under Section 29 (2) of the said Act for the purpose of quantifying the compensation.
However, it is made clear that the title that has vested in the acquiring body/the beneficiary shall stand intact, the observations herein made above, notwithstanding.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc