Sri Mahadevaiah vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 178 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. NO.955 OF 2022 (GM-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH
SON OF VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDNG AT P. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
SORAKUNTE POST
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572128.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. VARUN, ADV., FOR
    MR. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       KIADB DIVISION OFFICE
       MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR
       BESIDE SIT COLLEGE
                             2



    B.H. ROAD
    TUMKUR 572103.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
                         ---

     THIS   WRIT   APPEAL   IS   FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SECURE
RECORDS IN W.P. NO.14423/2020 (GM-KIADB). SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.
NO.14423/2020 (GM-KIADB) AND ORDER TO ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
WRIT APPEAL WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS.


     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                        JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

appellant seeking quashment of endorsement dated

08.03.2019 by which his request for compensation in

relation to certain standing trees on the land in

question, has been rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the land of the appellant was

acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Under

Section 29 of the aforesaid Act which provides for

grant of compensation on the basis of consent of the

land owner, settlement of compensation was made

and the amount of compensation was paid to the

appellant on 07.06.2016. The appellant admittedly

received the amount of compensation with his

consent. Thereafter, the appellant, after a period of

more than 3 years, made a prayer to the authorities

seeking compensation in relation to certain standing

trees on the land in question. The aforesaid

representation was rejected by an endorsement dated

08.03.2019. The appellant challenged the aforesaid

endorsement in a writ petition which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is entitled to payment of

compensation in relation to standing trees on the land

in question.

4. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides. The amount of compensation was

admittedly settled and the appellant accepted the

amount of compensation without any demur on

07.06.2016. After a period of more than 3 years, the

appellant filed a writ petition seeking payment of

additional compensation in respect of trees standing

on the land. The appellant having accepted the

compensation which was determined with his

consent, cannot turn around and claim additional

compensation. The learned Single Judge, has

therefore rightly declined to entertain the writ petition.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV