IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.18562/2018 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mohammed Iqbal, S/o. Late. Mahammed Abdul Khaleel, Aged About 47 Years, Presently R/at-No.21, MBM Road, Frezer Town, Bengaluru - 560005.
(By Sri. Shankar Rangareji, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, N.R. Square, Bengaluru - 560002.
2. The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru - 560020.
... Petitioner 3. The Town Planner Member Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumar Park West, Bengaluru - 560020. ... Respondents (By Sri.Muralidhar B.V. Advocate for R1 Sri.K.Krishna, Advocate for R2 and R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to restrain the respondents from demolishing the building or from forcibly taking possession of any portion of the petitioner's property bearing Corporation No.1 (New PID No. 70-1-15 situated at Adugodi, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru - 560 030, more fully described in the Schedule until the respondent No.1 resorts to acquisition proceedings under the applicable law for acquisition.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner claiming to be the owner and is in possession of residential house property bearing Corporation No.1 (new PID 70-1-15) situated at Adugodi, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru, has filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from demolishing the building forcibly and taking possession of any portion of the petitioner’s property, unless the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) were to resort to acquisition proceedings under the applicable law.
2. The petitioner states that respondent-BBMP intended to widen Hosur Road stating that the same was required as per the proposal contained in the Revised Master Plan-2015. The petitioner further states that respondent-BBMP had offered Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of monetary compensation and had called upon the petitioner to give up rights to his property voluntarily and accept the ‘Development Rights Certificate.’ The petitioner states that he had communicated to the respondent-BBMP that he has not accepted the offer made, for giving up his property rights in lieu of monetary compensation by accepting TDRs as offered by the respondent-BBMP.
3. The petitioner states that despite having intimated the rejection of offer, the respondent-BBMP was intent on going ahead with the project and were calling upon the petitioner to accept the ‘Development Rights Certificate’ that was offered.
4. The petitioner states that with respect to the same road widening project, this Court in Writ Petition No.31642/2011 and connected petitions had passed an order on 16.09.2011 after noticing the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for BBMP that as the property owners are not accepting the TDRs, the respondent-BBMP would take possession of the petitioner’s property only after acquiring the same in accordance with law. The petitioner states that similar order may be passed in the present petition also.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that they have never made any attempt to forcibly take possession of petitioner’s property and that, if the petitioner is not willing to accept TDRs being offered, they would be constrained to taken action for acquisition under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law which provides for acquisition.
6. Taking note of the said submission, this petition is disposed of observing that the respondent- BBMP is restrained from interfering with the rights in the property of the petitioner except by:-
a) Acquisition of the property of petitioner to an extent as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law providing for acquisition of property as may be applicable.
b) Respondent-BBMP is at liberty to obtain transfer of property of the petitioner to the extent as may be required through Deed of Conveyance after settling the terms through negotiations with the property owners.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP states that certain civil works have already been initiated as regards road widening in the public property.
8. Taking note of the said submission, it is made clear that this order would not in any way impose any embargo on the respondent-BBMP to continue with their civil works relating to or in connection with road widening in the public property without affecting the property rights of the petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to the above observations.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE