CHIKKANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the owner of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 20/1 measuring 9 guntas, 29/2 measuring 3 acres 39 guntas, 30/1 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas, 30/4 measuring 1 acres 7 guntas and 79 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas of Hinnaki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The said lands have been acquired by the State Government for a housing scheme. The petitioner has agreed for passing an award by consent under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this connection, agreements have been entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent on 3.2.2009. Consent awards were passed by the 4th respondent on 4.2.2009. Possession of the land was taken on 15.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation at Annexure-E dated 14.3.2012 requesting the 4th respondent to permit him to avail the benefit of the scheme at Annexure-C dated 2.12.2010 whereby the State Government has decided to allot the developed land to the land owners in the ratio of 60:40 in lieu of compensation. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme at Annexure-C dated 2.12.2010 as his lands have been acquired. He has made a representation as per Annexure-E dated 14.3.2012 requesting the 4th respondent to grant him the benefit under the scheme. It is further submitted that in M/S. SUN AGRO TECH FLORICULTURE UNIT AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P. No. 2650/2007 disposed of on 21.07.2011), this Court has allowed the writ petition and has directed the competent authority to consider a similar representation in accordance with law. The petitioner is also entitled for the similar relief in this writ petition.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme at Annexure-C. It is argued that after the final notification dated 2.11.2006, the consent awards were passed on 4.2.2009. He has drawn my attention to the consent awards produced along with the statement of objections as also the agreements entered into between the parties and the indemnity bonds executed by the petitioner in terms of the agreements.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.