01Facts
The petitioners claimed ownership interests in property acquired for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Project.
p. 4Under general awards dated 30 December 2013 and 9 October 2015, they received ₹6,24,44,207 and sought the outstanding compensation of ₹4,01,22,605.
p. 4They later challenged the awards, seeking compensation under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), with the sums already received credited against the amount payable.
p. 4The State and KIADB were respondents; KIADB’s counsel stated that an order under Section 29(2) had already determined compensation and that the respondents did not oppose extending that benefit to the petitioners
pp. 4–602Issues
i.Whether the general awards should be quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioners’ land, in light of the compensation determined under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act.
pp. 5–6ii.Whether the petitioners should receive a consent award under Section 29(2), with compensation already received deducted from the amount payable.
pp. 5–703Law Applied
Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act was the statutory basis for determining the compensation sought by the petitioners.
pp. 5–7The Court ordered a consent award under that provision and directed that amounts already paid be adjusted against the compensation payable.
pp. 5–7No judicial precedents were cited or discussed
pp. 5–7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 Section 29
04Reasoning
The petitioners relied on the more beneficial compensation determination made under Section 29(2) and sought corresponding relief for their share in the acquired property.
pp. 5–7KIADB’s counsel did not oppose extending that benefit.
pp. 5–7In those circumstances, the Court quashed the general awards to the extent they concerned the petitioners and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pass a consent award, crediting the compensation already paid.
pp. 5–7The Court also provided that the quashed awards would revive if any dispute or unresolved objection arose.
p. 705Holding
The petition was allowed.
pp. 6–7The general awards were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioners’ land.
pp. 6–7The Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass a consent award under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act within two months of receiving the order and to adjust amounts already paid.
pp. 6–7Upon passage of the consent award, Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. was directed to ensure that the compensation was deposited with the Officer.
pp. 6–7If a dispute or unresolved objection arose, the quashed general award would stand revived
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
SMT REKHA GOYALvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
