Sri Munivenkatappa vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6109 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6109 Kant
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sri Munivenkatappa vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2021

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.22112 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
                                     ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
       BENGALURU - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
                           2




3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     NO 39, 4TH FLOOR, SHANTHI GRUHA
     BHARTH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING
     PALACE ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCTE FOR
    R-2 AND R-3
    SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH GENERAL AWARD DATED 02.03.2021 VIDE
ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-3, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE PETITIONERS LAND IN SY.NO.17/4, MEASURING 0-27
GUNTAS,    SITUATED    AT    MINDAHALLI   VILLAGE,
BHUVANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT; DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER
THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER SECTION 29(2) OF
THE KIADB ACT FOR PASSING THE CONSENT AWARD AND
ISSUED A DIRECTION TO THE R-2 AND R-3 TO RE-
DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 29(2)
OF THE KIADB ACT, 1962 AND TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION SO FIXED TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN A
SPECIFIC PERIOD.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                     ORDER

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit

that the matter is covered by a judgment of this Court

in W.P.No.14229/2021 and in W.P.No.19325/2021. In

view of the same, this writ petition shall be disposed

of in terms of the aforesaid order.

2. Submission is placed on record.

3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

That the father of the petitioner by name

Venkataramanappa was the absolute owner of land in

Sy.No.17/4, measuring 27 guntas, situated at

Mindahalli Village, Bhuvanahalli Post, Kasaba Hobli,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The father of the

petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the

said land and all the revenue records stood in the

name of the father of the petitioner. The father of the

petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner as his

legal heir and property was transferred in the name of

petitioner.

3.1. Respondents have issued Preliminary

Notification on 13.03.2012 under Section 28(1) of the

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966,

(for short 'KIAD Act') and after lapse of 8 years,

respondents issued the Final Notification dated

28.07.2020, under Section 28(4) of 'KIAD Act', 1966.

Respondent No.3 passed the General Award on

02.03.2021. The petitioner being aggrieved by the

acquisition proceedings has filed this writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondents No.2 and 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

the reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in W.P.No.14229/2021. The grievance of

the petitioner is that, while the General Award passed

by the respondent No.3 was questioned by some of

the landlords, this Court in the case of

SMT.RATHNAMMA V/S THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA in W.P.No.31702/2018, disposed of on

29.11.2018, has set aside the General Award and

directed the respondents to consider the claim of the

petitioner therein under Section 29(2) of the 'KIAD

Act', 1966, within a period of two months. Therefore,

the petitioner is also entitled for same relief.

6. Consequently, in view of the decisions

referred above, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) The writ petition is allowed.

b) The impugned General Award dated 02.03.2021, vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.3, insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land in Sy.No.17/4, measuring 27 guntas, is hereby set aside and quashed.

c) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

d) It is made clear that in the event, if any dispute arises with regard to entitlement and apportionment of the award amount, the General Award at Annexure-A, which has been quashed by this Court, would revive.