Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Ammannamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:704
WP No. 21923 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.21923 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. AMMANNAMMA
W/O. LATE CHIKKAMARI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT CHEELURU VILLAGE & POST,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
HAROHALLI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 121.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally BANGALORE-560 001,
signed by H K
HEMA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
Location: High 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Court of
Karnataka KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.39, 4TH FLOOR, SHANTHI GRUHA,
BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HAROHALLI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.3;
SRI VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:704
WP No. 21923 of 2023
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR DIRECTION, TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED
09.03.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER
ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING
SY.NO.127 MEASURING 2 ACRE 21 GUNTAS OF CHEELUR
VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK IS
CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
general award has been passed only on the ground that
the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer for award of
compensation. Learned counsel submits that this Court
has held in several matters including the recent decision in
the case of Harisha.R /vs./ State of Karnataka and
others in W.P.No.12703/2023 dated 27.06.2023
following an earlier decision in W.P.No.6198/2015, that
the land loser would be entitled for a better price as
compensation instead of as determined under a general
award. As a consequence all such matters where it was
NC: 2024:KHC:704
found that a general award was passed only on some
technical ground that the land loser was not present at the
time of hearing or such other technical reasons, this Court
was of the considered opinion that since the land loser
would get a better price if the compensation is awarded in
terms of the agreement and not under a general award,
the award may be passed in terms of an agreement.
Therefore, the learned counsel submits that similar benefit
should be given to the petitioner.
2. On going through several of the following judgments
which were rendered by this Court:
i) Smt. Rukmani v/s State of Karnataka-
W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 dated 16.09.2016;
ii) Sri.Basavaraju vs. State of Karnataka-
W.P.No.34071/2017 dated 28.08.2017;
iii) Sri.Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka-
W.P.No.51362/2016 dated 21.03.2018;
iv) Smt.Ningamma vs. State of Karnataka-
W.P.No.6198/2015 dated 25.08.2015;
v) Sri.Bhyraiah vs. State of Karnataka-
W.P.No.40896/2017 dated 24.01.2019;
NC: 2024:KHC:704
vi) Sri.Narasimhamurthy vs. State of Karnataka -
W.P.No.16220/2023 dated 31.07.2023;
this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner
is entitled for similar relief as was given in the cases
mentioned above.
3. Consequently, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned general award dated 09.03.2021 at
Annexure-K insofar as the petitioner's land is
concerned is set aside.
(iii) The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer of
the KIADB is directed to reconsider the request of the
petitioner for award of compensation by way of an
agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIADB Act and
pass necessary orders within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iv) The respondent - Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, is at liberty to withdraw the amount that has
been deposited by it pursuant to the general award
before the jurisdictional Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:704
(v) Needless to state that in the event of any dispute,
the general award would stand restored.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
