IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51142/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI SHABEER S/O LATE SABUSAB AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT No.943, VEMAGAL KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.) 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 # 14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NIMZ KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA. FOR R-1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PEITTION IN SO FAR PETITIONER PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.63/1 ADMEASURING 05 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SHINGIHALLI VILLAGE, VEMGAL H OBLI, KOLAR TALUK IS CONCERNED; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the general award dated 12.07.2017 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-G relating to the property of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.63/1 measuring 05 guntas situated at Shingihalli Village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District.
2. In identical circumstances, in W.P.Nos.22311-22316/2016 (D.D. 06.09.2016), this Court has placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.6198/2015 disposed of on 25.08.2015, wherein 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 no 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.”
Following the said decision, the general award relating to the survey number therein has been set aside.
3. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the general award at Annexure – G dated 12.07.2017 in respect of survey numbers aforementioned is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of KIAD Act, keeping in mind the order referred to above.
4. Compliance within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent No.3 is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit in the Civil Court.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.