Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmidevamma vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 10671 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
WIFE OF KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIPPEDASARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KORA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-572 128
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYA P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
Location: High M.S.BUILDING,
Court of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001
2. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
HEAD OFFICE AT NO.44, 4TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
(NIMZ), 1ST FLOOR, MAMATHA TOWER,
TUMKUR DIVISION,
TUMKUR-572 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI R. SRINIVASA GORDE, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE GENERAL AWARD IN
SLA/KIADB/TU/COM.NO.3506/2021-22 DATED 15/07/2021
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY, THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.6/1,
MEASURING 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
THIPPEDASARAHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK
AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the general
award dated 15.07.2021 in respect of lands situated in Sy.
No. 6/1 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at
Thippedasarahalli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, and
has sought for direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the
Act') for passing consent award.
2. The Petitioner states that the general award
came to be passed on 15.07.2021 pursuant to the
preliminary and final notifications fixing the compensation
at Rs.3,30,000/- per acre. It is submitted that though she
intends to avail higher compensation by way of agreement
under Section 29(2) of the Act, in light of the pendency of
litigation, she was unable to exercise her option under
Section 29(2). It is submitted that original suits for
partition were pending, which finally came to be disposed
off by passing of judgment in R.F.A.No. 2101/2018 c/w
1617/2018 dated 29.03.2023. It is further submitted that
as on the date of passing of the general award, RFA was
pending.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The pendency of Regular First Appeal referred
to above as on the date of passing of the general award is
not controverted.
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
5. Taking note of the manner of disposal of writ
petition in W.P.No. 1240/2021 and other matters, the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of higher compensation
as could be awarded by way of agreement under Section
29(2) of the Act.
6. Noticed similar orders passed in
W.P.No.1240/2021 and other matters. The observations in
W.P.No.1240/2021 which can be taken note of are
extracted herein below:
"Respondent No.3 to consider the case of
petitioners for determination of compensation
in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, keeping in
mind the observations made in
W.P.No.6198/2015. The extract of relevant
portion of the order is as follows:
"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
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
respect of petitioner is concerned shall
stand restored until the dispute is
resolved."
7. The petitioner having not challenged the validity
of the acquisition, the contention that in light of
preexisting litigation pending before this Court in RFA she
was not in a position to avail of higher compensation that
she could otherwise avail of by way of agreement under
Section 29(2) of the Act requires to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, the general award is set aside.
Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of
petitioner for availing compensation by way of agreement
under Section 29(2) of the Act and to pass necessary
orders within a period not later than 3 months from the
date of release of this order. Respondent - Authority is at
liberty to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by
it pursuant to the general award before the jurisdictional
Court. Needless to state that in the event of any dispute,
the general award would stand restored.
NC: 2023:KHC:20095
WP No. 10671 of 2023
Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
