IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.No.6398 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN SRI T S SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA , AGED MAJOR, R/AT AT LAKSHMANAPURA VILLAGE, THAYAMANGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562132. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WING 4, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WING 4, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
REPT BY CEO & EM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.H.C.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF 27 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.31/4 OF LAKSHMANAPURA VILLAGE, THAYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGAL TALUK, OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D [E R The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts and the learned HCGP Shri Dildar Shiralli as also Shri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned Panel Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not dispute that the facts of this petition matches with that in W.P.No.6198/2015 in the case of Smt. Ningamma Vs. State and Others disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2015, relevant paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3 whereof read 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, 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 06.12.2014 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 tile 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.”
2. Writ Petition is partly allowed; General award dated 26.12.2013, Annexure ‘E’ is quashed to the extent it comprises the petition property for the limited purpose of re-determination and payment of compensation treating the acquisition in question as the one done with agreement in terms of Section 29 (2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, subject to the just exceptions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment.
Costs made easy.
SD/- JUDGE cbc