IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.15837/2010(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
RAMAKKA 66 YEARS, W/O PEDDANNA (LATE), No.54, AVALAMMA CHOULTRY, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023. (BY SRI V. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. STATE OF KARNTAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY 2. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, R.P. BUILDINGS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, CITY SURVEY (CTS)-11 K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.
5. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R. ANANDESWAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SRI N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI C.N. SANGOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE EXTENT OF LAND IN PROPERTY NO.54 AS 40.12 SQ.METERS AS SHOWN IN THE LEASE-CUM-SALE DEED DATED 31.12.1985 (ANNEXURE-B) AND SALE DEED DATED 18.11.2019 (ANNEXURE-C) AND OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petitioner who is land loser for the benefit of the second respondent-Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, acquired by the third respondent- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, is before this Court, for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the extent of land in property No.54 as 40.12 sq.mtrs in consonance with Annexure-B-lease cum sale deed dated 31.12.1985 and registered sale deed dated 18.11.2009 vide Annexure-C executed by the fifth respondent-Corporation and other public documents issued by the authorities. The petitioner has also sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner until compensation amount and other entitlement under the package is paid to the petitioner as per rehabilitation package dated 17.08.2007 and compute the compensation amount payable to the petitioner specified for Magadi Road area as per the valuation sheet prepared by Thomas Committee, vide Annexure-K.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is the owner of site No.54 measuring East to West (20+20¼)/2 feet and North to South (21+21¾)/2 feet totally measuring 47.77 square yards (equivalent to 40.12 sq.mtrs) situated at Avalamma Choultry layout, Magadi Road, Bengaluru. A lease cum sale deed dated 31.12.1985 was executed by the Bangalore City Corporation in favour of the husband of the petitioner- late Peddanna, in respect of the said property. The period of lease was for 20 years from 01.04.1985. After allotment of the site, petitioner’s husband constructed a residential house and started residing there along with his family members.
3. The husband of the petitioner-Peddanna, died on 26.06.1995. The 5th respondent-BBMP executed a sale deed dated 18.11.2009 in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of `80,000/- i.e., at the rate of `200/- per sq.mtr. The Property Identification Number (PID) 26-69-15 was allotted to the said property by the BBMP. The second respondent-Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (‘BMRCL’ for short) is the implementing agency, a joint venture of respondent No.1 and the Government of India. The land required for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project was acquired through third respondent under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The acquisition is by the third respondent- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The computation and payment of compensation to the persons whose properties are acquired was done by the second respondent-BMRCL. Accordingly, KIADB issued notification dated 17.01.2006 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 proposing to acquire 36.420 sq.mtrs of land belonging to the petitioner. On 23.01.2006, public notice under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act was issued. The petitioner filed objections. Thereafter, on 25.02.2006, the petitioner informed that there is difference in the extent of land mentioned in the notice and the actual extent of land which is 40.12 sq.metres as shown in the sale deed dated 18.11.2009 vide Annexure-C, which is in actual possession and occupation of the petitioner, since 1985. Thereafter, the second respondent issued notice dated 05.06.2009 to the petitioner that 19.52 sq.mtrs out of 38.43 sq. mtrs in property No.54 is acquired as per notification dated 24.10.2007. The petitioner wrote a letter to the second respondent on 22.06.2009 requesting to inform about the quantum of compensation that would be paid to her. The third respondent wrote a letter to the second respondent informing that a total of 38.43 sq.mtrs was acquired in property No.54.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that inspite of the lease cum sale agreement and registered sale deed executed by the Corporation and notification issued by the Government, though the petitioner is the owner of entire extent of the property in question, compensation came to be awarded in respect of 19.52 sq.mtrs only, as wrongly specified in the letter dated 15.09.2009.
Therefore, petitioner made representation to the authorities concerned requesting them to pay the compensation in respect of 40.12 sq.mtrs. The same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. The State Government as well as the Corporation have not filed objections to the writ petition.
6. The second respondent-BMRCL filed statement of objections to the writ petition and denied the averments made therein and contended that the actual property belonging to the petitioner available for acquisition is only 19.52 sq.mtrs and not 40.12 sq.mtrs. It is further contended that the Assistant Director of Land Records has stated that the property in question does not require measurement, in view of the fact that already a road formed in the said property. The petitioner has not made any mention in respect of the extent of road formed in the petition. The said fact is suppressed with an intention to obtain more compensation. It is further contended that the survey of the land has been conducted, sketch has been prepared and actual property existing is legally acceptable and available for the purpose of implementation of the project and accordingly the compensation paid is proper and correct. Therefore, it is contended that there is no land available for acquisition to the extent of 38.43 sq.mtrs or 40 sq. mtrs. as contended by the petitioner. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. Sri V. Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the documents produced by the petitioner i.e., Annexures-A to E clearly indicate that petitioner is the owner of 40 sq.mtrs. of land. The same has not been considered by the respondents including the second respondent and paid compensation only in respect of the land measuring 19.52 sq.mtrs and even for the remaining land acquired by the second respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
9. Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel for the second respondent, reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, contended that the actual land of the petitioner acquired as per the survey and measurement done by the concerned authorities is only 19.52 sq.mtrs. and not 40.12 sq.mtrs, as contended by the petitioner and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the house property bearing No.54 is totally measuring 40.12 sq.mtrs, based on the allotment letter, lease cum sale deed, registered sale deed and acquisition made by the authorities. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has suppressed the fact of road formed by the Corporation and after survey, only land available and acquired by BMRCL is only 19.52 sq.mtrs. There are disputed facts with regard to extent of the property. This Court, exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot look into the same. It requires evidence. Therefore, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to consider the extent of land in question. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, this Court, at the first instance granted injunction which came to be vacated subsequently.
11. In view of the aforesaid disputed facts, this Court cannot venture to record evidence of the parties and parties have to approach the competent Civil Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to agitate her rights before the competent Civil Court to prove the total extent of land belonging to the petitioner in property No.54, in terms of the allotment letter, lease cum sale agreement, registered sale deed and notifications. It is for the competent Civil Court to decide the rights of the parties based on oral and documentary evidence to be adduced and produced by the parties. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court.
12. The deposit made is in respect of 38.43 sq.mtrs out of which the compensation is paid only in respect of 19.52 sq.mtrs. The compensation in respect of the remaining disputed area in terms of the Order dated 21.04.2011 shall be subject to the result of the suit to be filed by the petitioner and in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm