IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.8454/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
P.C. Sridharan, S/o Late P.R. Chelvaraj, Aged 72 years, R/a No.19, Shree Sakthi Estate, Hope Farm Main Road, White Field, Bangalore – 66. … Petitioner (By Sri Prakash M.H., Advocate) And:
1. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Corporation Circle, Bangalore – 02, Rept. by its Commissioner.
2. The Executive Engineer, Planning Centre-4, BBMP, Third Floor, Annex Building, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 02.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (TDR), Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura Range, Whitefield Main Road, RHB Colony, Mahadevapura, Bangalore – 48. … Respondents (By Sri V. Sreenidhi, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule properties or to demolish/develop the same in any manner without following the procedure established under the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who is said to be the owner of suit schedule property situated at Pattandur, Whitefield, Bengaluru, which is morefully described in the schedule of the petition states that the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) intended to form a Signal Free Corridor Project and as a part of the said Project an underpass is sought to be formed at the Hope Farm junction. The petitioner states that as per Annexure-E dated 04.10.2018, notice was issued to all the property owners, whose properties were to be affected by execution of the Project. The petitioner further states that though BBMP had expressed interest in directly purchasing the properties from the petitioner, there has been no progress as such as regards such proposal.
2. The petitioner further states that, in the event, the properties are to be made use of, the same cannot be permitted, except by acquisition of properties either under the applicable Land Acquisition Act or by purchase of the properties of the petitioner.
3. Sri V.Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP, upon instructions from Sri M.Lokesh, Executive Engineer, Project Central Force, BBMP, who is present in Court states that unless efforts to procure the properties by outright sale at market value fructifies, the properties of the petitioner would not be touched, except after acquisition under applicable laws.
4. Taking note of the said undertaking, this petition is disposed of restraining the respondent–BBMP from interfering with the petitioner’s enjoyment of the properties or making use of the properties of the petitioner, except pursuant to acquisition under applicable laws after payment of compensation in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
5. Needless to state that it is always open to the respondent-BBMP to purchase the properties of the petitioner through consensual negotiation.
Accordingly, subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR