IQBAL AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, having given up his land in acquisition process by agreement under the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.2 - KIADB 2 & Respondent No. 3 - the SLAO of KIADB to pass fresh awards and to pay compensation " as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with interest, solatium and other statutory benefits.

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that the acquisition of land being under the provisions of Sec. 28, awards need to be passed and that having not been done in view of change of legal regime in terms of 2013 Act, the exercise has to be now undertaken so that, his client would get some more money which he is legally entitled to. He points out that the claim of the Petitioner in this regard still pends before the KIADB and therefore, a writ be issued for its consideration in a time bound way.

(3.) After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA and the KIADB is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel. Both they vehemently oppose the Writ Petition essentially contending that the acquisition in question has been accomplished by Sec. 29(2) Agreement dtd. 12/1/2021 whereunder admittedly Petitioner has been paid the compensation, solatium, interest, additional market value, in terms of quantified in a sum of Rs.4.96 Crore. They also bank upon the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNTAKA vs. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA , (2005) 4 SCC 264, for seeking dismissal of the Petition.