Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yashoda Veeramayanna vs Karnataka Industrial Area on 8 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3641 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODA VEERAMAYANNA
W/O H.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.31375, NEUMA DRIVE,
CATHEDRLA CITY, CALIFORNIA,
U.S.A. - 92234.
REP. BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
B.G. VASUDEV
S/O B.P. GOPALKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, BRIGADE PARK VIEW,
B.P. WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA
Location: High 1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
Court of Karnataka
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
KIADB-METRO,
BENGALURU.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB-METRO,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT OFFICER,
KIADB-METRO,
NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. SMT. B.V. SMITHA
W/O LATE B.V. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A NO.91, 4TH CROSS,
RELIABLE RESIDENCY, I PHASE,
HARALUR ROAD,
SOMASANDRA PALLYA,
H.S.R. 2ND SECTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. K.S. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO PASS ORDERS IN
APPLICATION NUMBER KIADB/METRO/BHOOSWA/ R3C/53/642/
2022-23 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.47161/2018 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1844/2019 MARKED AS
ANNEXURES 'E' AND 'F',; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to
the respondents 2 and 3 to pass appropriate order in terms of
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.47161 of
2018 and Writ Appeal No.1844 of 2019 vide Annexures 'E' and
'F' respectively in respect of the entitlement of the parties to
receive compensation.
2. Heard Sri. Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. K.S. Rajesh Gowda,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the grievance of the parties in this writ petition is with
regard to entitlement of the respective share in the
compensation that may be awarded by the respondent-
Authorities. On careful examination of the writ papers, the
same would indicate that the respondent No.4 herein has filed
Writ Appeal No.1844 of 2019 and the said appeal came to be
disposed of on 29th August, 2019 (Annexure-F), wherein, the
Division Bench of this Court at paragraphs 6 to 8 held as
follows:
"6. Regular First Appeal NO.1764/2007 was
preferred against the decree of the trial Court. Under the
said decree, a share was provided to the fist respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
A review petition was filed by the first respondent seeking
review of the consent decree in the appeal. In fact, while
disposing of the review petition, the Division Bench of this
Court accepted the fact that the first respondent had a
share in the property. Paragraph 7 of the said order in
the review petition reads thus:
"7. On hearing learned counsel, we are
of the view that share of the review petitioner-
defendant No.7 was identified in para 42 of
1/40th share along with defendant Nos.5 an d8
in the suit properties except plaint schedule 'G'
property. Therefore, we are of the view that
until and unless a decree was obtained by the
petitioner, the question of entertaining the plea
of the review petitioner would be a futile
exercise, since even though the share of the
petitioner has been identified by the trial
Court, the same has not culminated into a
decree."
7. The Division Bench observed that the first
respondent is entitled to get a share but she can get the
share only after securing a decree, in any case, the first
respondent was not a party to the compromise in Regular
First Appeal No.1764/2007 and hence, the said
compromise is not binding on her. The decision of the
Apex Court in Bimal Kumar (supra) will not help the
appellant especially when in the review petition filed by
the first respondent, the Division Bench accepted that she
has a share.
8. As regards the last submission, the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been incorporated in
the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1963. It is for this reasons that the
learned Single Judge observed that the entitlement of the
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
parties to a compensation will be decided by the Civil
Court in a reference for apportionment.
Hence, we find no error in the impugned judgment
and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
4. It is also evident that, this Court, by order dated 06th
December, 2022 (Annexure-K), disposed of the Writ petition
No.13002 of 2022 filed by the respondent No.4 and her son,
wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at paragraph 5
held as follows:
"5. Under these circumstances, though several
contentions have been urged by both sides, without
expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival
contentions and leaving / keeping the same open, I deem
it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing
the concerned respondents to comply with the directions
issued by this Court in W.P.No.272/2020 c/w
W.P.No.358/2020 dated 15.07.2021, after hearing the
petitioners, 5th respondent and all other concerned parties
and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5. In that view of the matter, though the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Appeal as well as the Single Judge in Writ
Petition, had categorically mentioned that the respondent-
Authorities have to hear the parties concerned with regard to
NC: 2024:KHC:45166
WP NO.3641 OF 2023
disbursement of compensation, and therefore, the Notice dated
27th January, 2023 (Annexure-M) was issued by the
respondent-KIADB, is contrary to orders passed by this Court
in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Therefore, I am of the view
that, it is open for the respondent-KIADB to issue notice to all
the parties concerned and take decision in the matter in the
light of observations made by the Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Appeal No.1844 of 2019 decided on 29th August, 2019.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
