IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.1489-1490 OF 2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ALAMMA WIFE OF LATE JUNJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT. SANNAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE JUNJAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NAGADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI ANANTHAKUMAR SON OF CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62, 2ND STAGE GNANABHARATHI LAYOUT ULLALU MAIN ROAD BENGALURU -560056.
(BY SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU -560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU -560020.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2 RESPONDENT No.1 IS SERVED) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.13694-695/2015 DATED 18/11/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13694- 13695 of 2015, by which the petitions were disposed off, the writ petitioners are in appeals.
2. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a mandamus directing the respondent-Bengaluru Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) to consider the case of the petitioners request for allotment of remaining 50% of the land in terms of the order of this court in W.P.No.46259/2013 (Annexure-E). The petitioners claim that 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 of Nagadevanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk is utilized by the respondent-BDA for formation of 100 feet road connecting Mysuru Road and Magadi Road without acquiring the land and without paying any compensation. It is stated that the respondent-officials of the BDA assured the petitioners to compensate by allotting 100% land, equivalent to the petitioner’s land utilized for formation of road. The petitioners further state that the petitioners requested the respondents-BDA to allot 100% of the land utilized by them, but the respondents-BDA allotted only 50% of the land in favour of the petitioners as per the resolution No.394 of 2011. It is stated that the petitioners were entitled for 12 guntas of land whereas the BDA has allotted only 6 guntas. It is asserted that the petitioners are entitled for 6 more guntas of land. The learned Single Judge by impugned order found that the respondents-BDA has failed to follow the procedure known to law in the matter of acquisition of land for formation of road and held that the petitioners would be entitled to 100% of the value of the land utilized by the respondent- BDA or for allotment of developed land equivalent to land value. Relying on the order passed by this Court (Annexure-E) dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.No.46259 of 2013, the learned Single Judge directed the BDA to evaluate the market value of the land of the petitioners utilized for formation of road and to allot them sites equivalent to the value of land utilized accordingly. It is stated that the BDA has conveyed already four sites being developed land to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge directed the respondent-BDA to value the sites already allotted and if values of all the four sites put together is in excess of value of 24 guntas of land, then they would have to recover the balance from the petitioners and if the value is less than the value of 24 guntas, the BDA will have to compensate the petitioners by equivalent value of developed land. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order are in appeals.
3. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-BDA and perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are entitled for 100% of land as compensation for the lands utilized by the BDA without acquisition for formation of road. It is his submission that the BDA has passed resolution in favour of some of the land owners to allot 100% of the land acquired. The petitioners are entitled for the same benefit. The respondents have allotted 50% of the developed lands against the land utilized by BDA and 50% of the developed land is yet to be allotted.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the BDA submits that for the land utilized by them for formation of road, the petitioners have already been allotted four sites being 50% of the value of the utilized land and the same is in accordance with the direction issued by this Court dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.46259 of 2013. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ appeals.
6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. The learned Single Judge has followed the directions issued by this Court dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.No.46259 of 2013 and connected matters. This Court, in the above stated order has held that the land owners would be entitled to 100% compensation on the land utilized by BDA and they are entitled for developed land or sites equivalent to the value of land utilized. In the case on hand also the petitioners would be entitled for the value of the lands utilized by the respondent-BDA for formation of road. The contention of the petitioners that they would be entitled for 100% developed land equivalent to the land utilized by the respondent-BDA has no basis. The petitioners would be entitled for full compensation for their lands utilized by the respondents-BDA. The petitioners could seek for compensation or seek for developed land in lieu of compensation. The learned Single Judge rightly following the directions issued in W.P.No.46259 of 2013 has held that the petitioners would be entitled to developed land equivalent to the value of compensation. Moreover, 4 sites have already been allotted to the petitioners. The respondent will have to evaluate the 4 sites allotted to the petitioners as to whether it is equivalent to value of the petitioner’s land utilized by the respondent BDA. On evaluation, if the value is found to be less than the value of petitioners’ land utilized, then the petitioners may be entitled for further allotment of developed land upto the value of utilized land.
7. In that circumstance, viewed from any angle, the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-*CT:bms