1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P. No.46451/2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN C. HEMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE C NARASIMHAIAH @ CHIKKA NARASIMAIAH, R/A NO.7, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, KALYANI NAGAR, VASANTHPURA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU – 560 061. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJARAE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, BBMP ZONAL OFFICE, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER- LAND ACQUISITION, BBMP, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE (RR NAGAR) BBMP, N R SQUARE NEW ANNEXURE BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.408 BENGALURU – 560 002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. R. JAGADEESWARA, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL NOTICE/DEMAND NOTICE DTD.11.7.2016 AND PAY THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN ANNEXURE-R.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr. Ambaji Rao Najarae, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. N. R. Jagadeeshwara, Adv. for R-1 to R-4.
1. The petitioner- Mr. C. Hemachandra filed this petition in this Court on 25.08.2016 with the following prayers:
“PRAYER WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any direction thereby:
a) Direct the respondents to consider the Legal Notice/Demand Notice dated 11.07.2016 and pay the compensation as prayed in Annexure-R b) Issue any other orders or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case which would meet the ends of justice and equity.”
Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent-BBMP has filed Statement of Objections and has taken the following stand in Para-7 of the Statement of Objections, which is quoted below:
“7. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, any conveyance deed including the partition deed must be registered. Unregistered conveyance deed has no evidentiary value at all. As such the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that this respondent has issued an order. The respondent no.1 has issued an assessment order ie., special notice under Section 147 of Schedule III of KMC Act dated 9.1.1986 in terms of which the property of the petitioner measures 25ftx30+42/2 ft ie., 25x36=900 Sq.ft. which document is admitted by the petitioner and he has paid the taxes in respect of the said measurement. The petitioner had put-up the commercial shops in the said properties and he has no property in front of the shops adjacent to the Mysore Road, the vacant land in front of the shops belongs to the respondent-BBMP and it is a road wherein the public are parking two wheelers and autos, in respect of the said property the petitioner is falsely claiming that the said property was acquired by the respondents. Copy of the Special notice dated 9.1.1986 is produced and marked ANNEXURE- R4 and the photographs are produced herewith to show that the property belongs to the respondent-BBMP as ANNEXURE-R5 series, ie., the part and parcel of the road which belongs to public under Section-174 of KMC Act and these respondents have absolute right over the said property and the petitioner has no right to claim compensation from the respondents further, the petitioner is claiming right over the property which belongs to BBMP.”
2. In view of the stand taken by the Respondent- BBMP that the land in question in front of the commercial shops of the petitioner always belonged to the Respondent-BBMP only, there is no question of payment of any compensation to the petitioner upon the widening the road to the extent of this public land in front of the petitioner’s commercial property. The stand of BBMP has not been controverted by the Petitioner. The Title of the property claimed by the petitioner for the purpose of compensation has not thus established by the petitioner.
The petition, is thus found to be misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR (Sl.No.43)