w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

N.M. Chandrashekar v/s The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others

    W.P. No. 4578 of 2020 (LA-KIADB)

    Decided On, 16 July 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: Murugesh V. Charati, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K.R. Roopa, HCGP, R2 & R3, Basavaraj V. Sabarad, R4, K. Krishna, Advocates.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the general award dated 10.12.2019 passed by the R-3 U/S 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is produced at Annx-F in so far as it relates to the property of the petitioner in property measuring 335.37 Plus 71.23 Sq.Meters, situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.)

(Through Video Conference At Bengaluru)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the general award dated 10.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in No.KIADB/METRO/LAQ/NG-R6-UG-P45, 33B/2019-20 which is produced at Annexure-F in so far as it relates to the property of the Petitioner in Property bearing No.140/218/129 in ID No.NG-R6-UG-P45, 33B (BBMP PIT No.140/228/129), measuring 335.37 + 71.23 Sq. meters, situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and etc.,

3. The above relief is sought on the premise that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the property which is acquired in favour of fourth respondent.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the compensation could not be released for the area involved is of a larger extent of 406 sq.mtr. That the petitioner is not the sole claimant and there are other claimants.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that interim injunction granted by the trial Court has been vacated and there is no impediment for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. He has filed an affidavit into Court on 15.07.2020 and the same reads as under:

"I, Chandrashekar N.M, S/o. Late N.A. Mayanna, aged about 58 years, r/o. no.60, 1st Main Road, Bikasi Pura, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru-560061, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I state that I am the petitioner in the above writ petition and conversant with the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.

2. I state that I have filed the above mentioned writ petition challenging the general award passed by the respondent in respect of my property. I submit that I am suffering from health ailments like liver cancer and throat cancer and I require financial assistance for the medical treatment. I am producing the reports issued by the Sri Shankara Cancer Hospital and research Centre and the Discharge summary issued by the BGS global Hospitals with regard to the health condition.

3. I submit that the present petition is filed challenging the entire general award but however I restrict my claim in the petition to an extent of 190.17 square meters only. I submit that there is no impediment for the respondent to consider my case for compensation under section 29(2) of the KIAD act. All the persons who are legally entitled for the compensation will appear before the Land Acquisition officer at the time of entering in to agreement.

4. I hereby verify that the contents of the present affidavit are true and correct."

6. He would further submit that presently he is seeking for release of the compensation insofar as it pertains to undisputed extent of 190.17 sq.meters and that other persons who are legally entitled for compensation in respect of the aforesaid extent would also appear before Land Acquisition Officer and would consent for acquisition of the aforesaid extent and payment of compensation be expedited in order to meet urgent medical expenses.

7. Learned counsel for respondents fairly agree to the same. They would submit that if all the persons who are interested in the said extent of 190.17 sq.meters, consent for the acquisition, the process of making award of the same would be expedited.

8. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the affidavit and the submissions made before the Court.

9. Accordingly, the question of considering the relief sought in the writ petition does not arise. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of by directing the parties to seek for consent acquisition and in the event the petitioner and other legal heirs satisfying Land Acquisition Officer with regard to their absolute right and title, insofar as it relates to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

190.17 sq.meters and there being no impediment. The respondents shall resort to consent acquisition and expedite passing of the award and payment of compensation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the event any dispute arises or is raised by any third party, questioning the title of the petitioner or his family members, the present direction shall not bind the respondents. The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.