Karnataka High Court
Sri C V Krishnareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION Nos.16642-649/2012 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1 SRI C.V.KRISHNAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2 SRI C.V.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3 SRI C.V.SHANKARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4 SRI C.V.GANESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5 SRI C.V.SRIRAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUR 46 YEARS,
6 SRI C.V.BABU REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
7 SRI C.V.BALA CHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
8 SRI C.V.SRINVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE SONS OF
LATE CHKKAVENKATAPPA REDDY,
AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MAHADEVA KODIGEHALLI,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE
NORTH (AADDL) TALUK.
- 2 -
NOW RESIDING AT
NO.17, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
DODDABANASAWADI,
BANGALORE - 560 043. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.GANGIREDDY, ADV.)
AND
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
(INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY, MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER (HARDWARE PARK),
KIADB, NO.3, 1ST CROSS,
KHENI BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
GHANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.MALLKARJUNAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE
LANDS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
- 3 -
2. The petition schedule lands were acquired by the 1st respondent for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore (for short 'the Board'). The petitioners as also several other persons are also notified as kathedars of the said lands. It is the case of the petitioners that they had agreed to receive the compensation by agreement under Section 29(2) of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966. It is further contended that despite the said agreement, the 3rd respondent has failed to disburse the compensation amount. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay the compensation amount together with interest in respect of the schedule lands.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents in the event of non-payment of
- 4 -
compensation by them, deposit the award amount together with interest and solatium at the rate of 9% for first year and 15% for the subsequent year as per section 34 of the LA Act to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of LA Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent has failed to deposit the compensation amount determined under Section 29(2) of the Act. Therefore, they may be directed to disburse the compensation amount.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for R2 & R3 submits that no agreement has been entered into between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent under Section 29(2) of the Act. He further submits that two civil suits relating to title of the schedule properties are pending. The State Government is contending that the lands in question are Government lands. Therefore, compensation amount
- 5 -
has been deposited in the civil Court as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. It is clear from the materials on record that though the petitioners have agreed to receive the amount as determined under Section 29(2) of the Act, the 3rd respondent has not agreed to pay the compensation accordingly. Agreements have not been entered between them and the 3rd respondent. Section 29(2) of the Act states that where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. It is also not in dispute that the award has not been passed as provided under Section 29(3) of the Act. Without an agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act, the 3rd respondent is not justified in depositing the compensation amount in the civil Court without passing an award. Since the 3rd respondent is not agreeing to pay the amount, as there is a title dispute in respect of
- 6 -
the properties in question, the only course open for him is to pass an award under Section 29(3) of the Act. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent has to withdraw the amount deposited in the Civil Court and has to pass the award under Section 29(3) of the Act in accordance with law.
6. In the result, I pass the following ORDER
(i) The 3rd respondent is directed to pass the award under Section 29(3) of the Act in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) The 3rd respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit in the Civil Court.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/