M. KATAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to non- payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Industrieal Areas Development Act, 1966. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner banks upon the Endorsement given by the concerned Tahsildar to the effect that the grant was genuine and therefore, consistent compensation has to be paid to his clients, in view of right to Property being constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the 1st Respondent - State and the learned Sr. panel Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, KIADB and its SLAO, oppose the Petition contending that under the Scheme envisaged in the 1966 Act, what is to be acted upon is the names of persons figuring in the Property Records at the time acquisition proceedings were initiated and therefore, if some other person is claiming compensation, he has to go before the Court under Ss. 30 & 31 of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act , 1894 for adjudication and redressal of grievance.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition reserving liberty to the Petitioner to avail the said remedy before the concerned Court.