IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.50839/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Sri G. Mohan, S/o V. Gopal Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.55, 5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. … Petitioner (By Sri. B. Pramod, Advocate) And:
1. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 002, Rep. by its Commissioner.
2. Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli Zone, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Begur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 068.
3. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Bommanahalli Sub-Division, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Begur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 068. … Respondents (By Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate for R1 to R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to restrain the respondents or their officials or workers from acquiring/taking possession the property of the petitioner or demolishing the building in the schedule property without following the procedure for acquisition as laid down by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and also framing a scheme as prescribed under Chapter-V of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property as described in the schedule situated Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is submitted that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the property and has revenue records mutated in his name and has been paying taxes.
2. Petitioner submits that he was served with notice on 03.01.2019 whereby the respondent has expressed its intention of widening Begur Road and for that purpose had called upon the petitioner to submit title documents and revenue records. It is further submitted that the respondent – BBMP has published notification at Annexure-E whereby the property owners were called upon to exercise their option of accepting the benefit of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of monetary compensation. It is further submitted that the property of the petitioner finds reference at notification at Annexure-E.
3. Petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for a direction to restrain the respondent – BBMP from taking possession of the property without following the procedure for acquisition. Petitioner further submits that pursuant to the notification at Annexure-E and the notice at Annexure-D, petitioner addressed representations at Annexures-F, H and H1 making out his stand that he does not intend to accept TDR Certificate as is offered under the notification. It is submitted that despite such representations, respondent – BBMP intends to make use of the property of the petitioner for road widening and has been calling upon the petitioner to accept the TDR Certificate in lieu of monetary compensation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP, however, contends that the notification under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has to be read in proper context and under Section 14-B, it is clear that what has been offered to the petitioner as TDR is in lieu of monetary compensation as would be payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law as may be applicable and that position is made clear on a plain reading of Section 14-B(6), which states that, if the owner does not agree to surrender his area, such land may be acquired by the respondent-BBMP in accordance with law that is applicable.
5. It is further submitted by respondent-BBMP that the proposed road widening/formation of road is in light of the Revised Master Plan–2015 and states that they intended the road widening/formation of road pursuant to the proposal in the Revised Master Plan- 2015 and in fact, the intention is made clear in the notification issued under Section 14-B of the Act itself. It is submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill-founded and the respondent-BBMP being a public Authority would proceed strictly in accordance with law.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 14-B of the Act that has been made by the respondent-BBMP is only an offer made to the property owners to give up their properties voluntarily in return for grant of TDR Certificates, which would be in lieu of monetary compensation. In fact, Section 14-B(6) of the Act would clarify the said position. The said provision reads as follows:-
“14-B. Benefit of development rights.-
(6) If the owner does not agree to surrender his ‘Area’ required by a Public Authority for any public purpose, for the Development Rights and demands for monetary compensation, then the Public Authority may acquire such ‘Area’ by providing compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.”
7. In light of the provisions of Section 14-B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the ‘Development Rights Certificates,’ which was being offered in lieu of monetary compensation, the respondent-BBMP would have to resort to acquisition under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.
8. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent-BBMP, the BBMP would not interfere with the rights of the property of petitioner. However, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to:-
(a) Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of property of the petitioner as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing;
(b) They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioner to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance.
(c) All other contentions of the parties are kept open and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
Subject to the above, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE VP