T.R. KODANDARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed in a short compass. The petitioner before this court has questioned the very acquisition proceedings which was the subject matter of writ petition in W.P. No. 260/2010 and connected cases decided on 21.09.2011. And though all the petitions were dismissed the present petitioner's petition was allowed and there was a specific observation that the petitioner's case being that there were large number of trees and other structures standing on the land and that as a matter of fact, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) had chosen to delete several such lands bearing Sy. Nos. 160, 731, 235, 63/1A, 63/1B, 63/2 and 64/5 which were deleted from the acquisition on that ground were cited as examples and therefore the present petitioner's petition was allowed with a direction that there should be reconsideration of the status of the land and if there were a large number of trees as in the case of other lands which were deleted from the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner's case could also be reconsidered in that regard. Notwithstanding this direction the present petition would indicate that apart from identification of land there is no indication as to any opinion formed by the competent authority in holding that petitioner is not entitled to such relief. This is patent from a plain reading of the order. The KIADB is hard put to sustain the same as it does not comply with the specific direction issued by this court. Therefore there is no choice but to allow this petition and direct the respondent -KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the benefit extended to other land owners wherein there were found to be a number of trees on the lands in question or there were other structures which entitled those land owners' lands to be deleted from the acquisition proceedings. It is now expected that the respondent -KIADB would not reiterate the impugned order in the exercise of examining the case of petitioner as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to a similar benefit as was extended to other land owners. For otherwise the case of the petitioner would have to be accepted, on the face of it. Therefore, the KIADB is put on terms to state reasons on which the case of the petitioner could be denied, if it so inclined to form an opinion in that regard. For otherwise it is evident that the petitioner would be entitled to relief as prayed for in the given circumstances of the case.

(2.) IN the meanwhile petitioner shall continue to have the benefit of the interim, order; of status quo.