IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.61572-574/2016(LA-BDA) BETWEEN 1. MRS. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE K.V.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MR R.PRAVEEN S/O LATE R.V.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. R.VINODH S/O LATE R.V.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.105, DUBASIPALYA (VALAGERAHALLI), KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 059. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri NAGARAJA N., ADV.) AND 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAK PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020, REP BY ITS COMMISSIOSNER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAK PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADV. FOR R2; R1 - SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DT.7.11.2016 AS PER ACKNOWLEDGMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent no.1 – Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’), to consider the representation dated 07.11.2016 produced at Annexure-H and take action in accordance with law.
2. Annexure-H is not a representation. It is indeed a notice issued by the petitioners through their Advocate to the Commissioner, BDA, on 07.11.2016. A perusal of the said notice reveals that an extent of 14 guntas of land out of 1 acre 1 gunta comprised in Sy. No.217/2 situated at Kengeri village, was owned by one K.V.Radhakrishna and upon his death, petitioners have succeeded to the same.
3. An extent of 24 guntas out of the said land was notified for acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 24.01.2002 followed by Final Notification dated 10.03.2003, for the purpose of formation of Sir M.Visveswaraiah Layout. Award was passed on 10.02.2003.
4. According to the petitioners, though 14 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners was not notified for acquisition, the same was unauthorizedly utilized by the BDA for formation of the layout. Alleging violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of petitioners, they got issued legal notice calling upon the BDA to allot 50% of developed land in lieu of utilization of 14 guntas of land in Sy. No.217/2 of Kengeri village belonging to the petitioners as per the decision taken by the Board vide resolution dated 16.01.2012 or in the alternative to acquire 14 guntas of land and pay compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the New Act’). As this notice has not been considered, petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction.
5. BDA has filed objections. Though several contentions are taken by the BDA in the statement of objections, it is neither plausible nor expedient to go into the merits of the matter to resolve the controversy raised. Factual question to be decided is whether land belonging to petitioners measuring 14 guntas has been utilized by the BDA without acquiring the same for the purpose of formation of the layout. This aspect has to be examined and decided by the BDA itself after considering the relevant documents made available or to be made available by the petitioners based on the records pertaining to the acquisition available with the BDA. If petitioners were to be aggrieved by the decision to be taken, then they could avail the remedy of approaching this Court or availing any other appropriate remedy.
6. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of. A direction is issued to the Commissioner, BDA, to treat the notice issued as per Annexure-H as a representation submitted by the petitioners and examine all the relevant records. The BDA shall thereafter pass an appropriate order regarding the request made by the petitioners for allotment of alternate land or for payment of compensation, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE KK