Compensation for land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, as per the Land Acquisition Act, encompasses all losses, negating the need for additional claims if compensation has been duly paid.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

"Issue writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to notify the entire extent of 600 sq ft. of land bearing no.49, having khatha no.49, situated at Benniganahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560016 instead of land measuring 6.65 sq. meters and direct the respondents to pay reasonable and fair compensation to the petitioner etc."

2. Sri H.A.Manjunatha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was absolute owner of property bearing no.49, khatha no.49 measuring East - West 30 ft. and North - South 20 ft., totally measuring 600 sq. ft. of Benniganahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. It was submitted that under notifications at Annexures - D and E, an extent of 6.65 sq. meters was acquired for purposes of BMRCL, through respondents no.1 and 2. It was submitted that acquisition of only 6.65 sq. meters rendered remaining extent of 600 sq. ft. unusable and therefore, seeks for direction to respondents to acquire remaining extent and pay compensation for same.

3. Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 would submit that acquisition of extent of 6.65 sq. meters land for purposes of respondents no.3 and 4 was not in dispute as only said extent was required. Further, in respect of said acquisition, petitioner was paid compensation as per Annexures-R8 and R9. In respect of remaining extent, it was submitted that petitioner had constructed house encroaching railway property and therefore there was no question of acquiring land which was railway property.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records.

5. From above, it is clear that there is no dispute between parties about acquisition of 6.65 sq. meters of land belonging to petitioner by respondents no.3 and 4 for BMRCL. There is also no dispute about payment of compensation for said extent. Contention of petitioner is that acquisition of a portion of land rendered remaining extent unusable, while respondents dispute ownership of petitioner regarding remaining extent. Therefore, whether petitioner would be entitled for a direction as sought for, has to be considered'.

6. Admittedly, acquisition is under provisions of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (for short, 'Act') which for purposes of computation of compensation, refers to provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sec. 23 of Land Acquisition Act would provide for assessment of compensation on various considerations including damage or loss or reduction of value in respect of remaining extent of land especially following:

"Sec. 23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation. -

(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4, sub-sec. (1):

.........

thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and .......".

7. Therefore, award would be deemed to compensate loss suffered by land loser on all counts. In that view of the matter, since receipt of compensation for land acquired is not in dispute and same would be deemed compensating entire loss sustained by petitioner on account of acquisition, no direction as sought for in this writ petition can be issued.

Hence, writ petition is without merits and stands dismisse