IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.34167/2018 (LA-KIADB) Between:
Gopalappa, Aged about 85 years, D/o Krishnappa, B.K. Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluka, Bengaluru District – 560064. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Pramod.V.Sambargi, Advocate) And:
1) The State Department of Industrial and Commerce, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru – 560001.
2) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Khanija Bhavan, IV Floor, East Wing, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
Represented by its C.E.O and E.M.
3) Special Land Acquisition Officer-II, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Khanija Bhavan, V Floor, East Wing, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
4) The State Represented by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, 5th Floor, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560001.
5) The Thasildar, Devanhalli, Bengaluru Rural District. ... Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 & R5 Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for R2 & R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to release the award amount as per the common/consent award at Annexure-F for acquisition of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.7 situated at BK Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Yelhanka Taluk, (earlier Devanhalli Taluka) belonging to the petitioner, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of final notification to till the release of the compensation amount.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact matrix of the present writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.Nos.18677-18680/2010 and W.P.Nos.18916-18917/2010 (LA-KIADB) disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2011 i.e., 2012(3) KarLJ 480 and therefore, the petitioner being similarly circumstanced, needs to be granted similar relief, there being no derogatory facts.
2. The above submission of the petitioner is not much disputed by Sri. Dildar Shiralli, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5 and Sri. H.L.Pradeep Kumar, the learned panel counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing respondent No. 2 & 3 to take all steps to pay to the petitioner the compensation for the acquisition of the subject land in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months.
4. The respondents 2 & 3 are put on warning that if the compensation amount does not reach the hands of the land loser within the period prescribed herein above, they shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum during the delayed period and that the said interest amount after payment to the land loser by the second respondent, shall be recoverable from the erring official responsible for such delay.
Respondent No.3 shall, in consultation with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with whom the compensation amount is stated to have been lying, shall take all steps for compliance of this direction.
Sd/- JUDGE RB