MUNI ANJINAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

(2.) Petitioner has sought for quashing of the general award and issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case of petitioner in terms of Sec. 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short 'the Act') and fix appropriate compensation.

(3.) Petitioner states that he is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 111 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas out of 4 acres 18 guntas situated at Doddagollahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It is submitted that the petitioner's land was notified by the respondent - KIADB and final notification was also passed under Sec. 28(4) of the Act on 25/5/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had intended to avail higher compensation under the package scheme in terms of agreement under Sec. 29(2) of the Act which was more beneficial, same could not be sought for as there were civil disputes pending in O.S.No. 602/2008.