Karnataka High Court
M/S. Hari Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NOs.9988-9992/2018 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.HARI ENTERPRISES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO.10/1, LAKSHMI NARAYANA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI SATISH PAI.
2. M/S.SHEKAR ASSOCIATES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO.85/1, K.H.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY IS PARTNER
SRI SATISH PAI. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATNARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
A STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966,
HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT:
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR,
RASHTROTHANNA PARISHAT BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-(METRO),
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, MAHASHRI ARVIND BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. M/S.BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
BMTC COMPLEX, KH ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF MANAGER (LAC AND ESTATE).
5. C. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
SON OF SRI.CHOWDAPPA,
MAJOR, RESIDING AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
6. V.C. SRINIVAS,
SON OF LATE SRICHINNAPPA,
MAJOR, RESIDING AT VANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 106. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E.S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI N.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI M.ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6)
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATIONS DTD:16.10.2015 UNDER SECTIONS 28[1]
AT ANNEXURE-J AND 28.09.2016 UNDER SECTION 28[4] AT
ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY R-1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Venkatnarayana, learned counsel for Sri Madhukar Deshpande, for the petitioners.
Sri E.S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Sri N.N. Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Sri M. Aswathanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
4
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia question the validity of the notifications dated 16.10.2015 and 28.09.2016 issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The petitioners also seek writ of certiorari for quashment of the communication dated 05.02.2017 as well as writ of mandamus seeking a direction to consider the representations dated 02.02.2018 and 05.02.2018.
4. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents jointly submitted that in pursuance of the award, the amount of compensation has already been deposited before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has issued notices for appearance to the parties. It is also stated that there is a dispute with regard to entitlement of the amount of compensation 5 between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the Reference Court be directed to decide the dispute in an expeditious manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Reference Court to adjudicate the dispute with regard to entitlement to receive the amount of compensation in respect of the property in question after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 by a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca