R. VENU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the Petitioner, regardless of the text of the prayer in the pleadings is as to non- extension of enhanced compensation otherwise payable under Sec. 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioner banks upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. RUKMINI & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.39611-39612/2016 (LA- KIADB) disposed off on 16/9/2016.

(2.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB vehemently opposes the Petition by contending that the petitioner's claim squarely falls in General Award Category and not under Sec. 29(2) of the Act; he has already accordingly 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 although broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB, permits the petitioner to file a representation seeking enhanced benefit 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 in the General Award category.