SHIVARUDRAIAH V. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless of the text of the prayer is as to non-extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Sec. 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.Nos.39611-39612/2016 (LA-KIADB) disposed off on 16/9/2016.

(2.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioner's claim squarely falls within General Award Category and not under Sec. 29(2) of the 1966 Act; accordingly, he has already received entire compensation; therefore, he cannot be granted any relief at the hands of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB and permits the Petitioner to file a representation seeking enhancement compensation in terms of Sec. 29(2) of the 1966 Act, provided that in similar cases, such a benefit has been accorded by the KIADB even when the case fell within the General Award category. It is open to the Petitioner to lay a claim for the developed portion of the land in terms of Final Notification dtd. 11/8/2021 in lieu of compensation as per Annexure-B to the Petition. If such a representation is made, KIADB would consider the same within a period of three months in accordance with law. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly, keeping open all contentions. No costs.