ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the 1st respondent - State as well as the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

(3.) In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that though several facts, grounds and reliefs have been urged and sought for in the petition, the petitioners are aggrieved only by the Award dtd. 29/7/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of contending that in the light of the undisputed fact that the Preliminary Notification under Sec. 28(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act') was issued by the respondents on 27/8/2020, after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013'), the petitioners would be entitled to compensation in terms of the said Act of 2013 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A.Act'), as wrongly applied by the respondents, who have erroneously passed the impugned Award under the L.A.Act and not under the said Act of 2013 and as such, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted on instructions that insofar as the other grounds and contentions urged in the petition except the challenge to the award, are not pressed by the petitioners. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sri.Balaji Corporate Services and another vs. Union of India and others - W.P.No.43206/2018 c/w W.P.No.53716/2017 dtd. 21/4/2022.