IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos. 3239-3241 OF 2019 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MEHABOOB KHAN S/O LATE SABJAN SAB AGED 70 YEARS R/AT NO.175,IN SY.NO.25, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 024 2. SRI BABU S/O MEHABOOB KHAN, AGED 47 YEARS R/AT NO.175,IN SY.NO.25, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 024 3. SRI RIZWAN PASHA S/O MEHABOOB KHAN, AGED 42 YEARS R/AT NO.175,IN SY.NO.25, CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 024 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M M ASHOKA,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 099 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR BMRCL (METRO) SHANTHINAGAR BMTC COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 027 4. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BMRCL, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN K I A D B,2ND FLOOR, R.P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1 &2; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 4;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2019 VIDE ANNX-E WITH RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONERS SITUATED IN SY.NO.25 OF CHALLAGATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-25 AND DIRECT R-4 FROM NOT DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONERS FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WITHOUT PAYING COMPENSATION TO THE LAND AND BUILDING TOGETHER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners arguably the grantees of the land are challenging the notice dated 09.01.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent-BMRCL, which reads as under:
“¸ÀASÉå:©.JA.Dgï.¹.J¯ï/(¨sÀÆ.¸Áé/ºÀAvÀ-2/jÃZï-2E-135-2017-18-738 ¢:09.01.2019 w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ «µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÄmÉÆæà gÉ樀 AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ 2£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀPÁÌV ZÀ¼ÀîWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 25 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«Ää£À°è 975.00 ZÀ.«Äà «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÀĪÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÉĺÀ§Æ¨ï R£ï 2. jeÁé£ï ¥ÁµÀ ©£ï ªÉĺÀ§Æ¨ï R£ï 3. ¨Á§Ä ©£ï ªÉĺÀ§Æ¨ï R£ï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢:24.12.2018.
****** G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ZÀ¼ÀîWÀlÖ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 25 gÀ°è ©.JA.Dgï.¹.J¯ï AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÁV 975.00 ZÀ.«Äà (10495.00 ZÀ.Cr) «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥æÀ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. £À°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV 1351.85 ZÀ.CrUÀ¼À «¹ÛÃtðzÀ°è ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ ±Éqï£À°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄ£À«¬ÄAzÀ w½zÀħA¢zÉ. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÀæ«ÄPÀgÀtzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¯Á 675.00 ZÀ.CrUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ¤«Äð¹gÀĪÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃzÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. 2025.00 ZÀ.Cr (ªÀÄƪÀjAzÀ) UÀ¼À ¸ÀPæÀ«ÄÃPÀgÀtzÀ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è 1351.85 ZÀ.CrUÀ¼À ±Éqï EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ©.JA.Dg.ï¹.J¯ï ¤AzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è ªÉĺÀ§Æ¨ï SÁ£ï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÁV CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀlÖqÀ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£ÀzÀ ZÉPï£ÀÄß ©.JA.Dgï.¹.J¯ï¤AzÀ ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯Éà wgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ZÉPï£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀħºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ªÀiËTPÀªÁV w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀĪÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. F w½ªÀ½PÉ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 1 ªÁgÀzÉƼÀUÁV C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ ±Éqï£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀħºÀÄzÁVzÉ.
(JA.J¸ï.ZÀ£ÀߥÀàUËqÀgï) ¥æÀzsÁ£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ (¨sÀÆ.¸Áé ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÄmÉÆæà gÉ樀 ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ”
2. In the said notice the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises after accepting the compensation for the structures which allegedly they have put therein.
3. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel have filed the Statement of Objections resisting the grant of relief to the writ petitioners inter alia contending that the grant made by the Tahsildar of the site in question is void ab initio; no such grant could have been made by the Tahsildar under the Rules obtaining in the field inasmuch as he is not the competent authority for granting the same; even if competence is assumed, still the Tahsildar could not have granted more than 600 sq.ft. of site to the applicants.
4. The learned panel counsel further submits that, BMRCL has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the said grant; that though legally speaking the petitioners may not be entitled to any compensation at all, still a sum of Rs.5,70,387/- is being paid to them by way of compensation for the structures which they claim to have erected on Government land; the petitioners had agreed to vacate the premises orally and they are not keeping these words and therefore, their very conduct itself disentitles them to the relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned panel counsel appearing for the respondents. I have perused the petition papers and the Statement of Objections.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners is agreeable to the proposal that the petitioners would receive the compensation aforementioned for the structures which they have put up on the land in question subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the respondent-BMRCL before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and that in the event the appeals fail, then the petitioners would be entitled to compensation for the lands, of course subject to the remedy for further course of action being availed against the dismissal of appeal, in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court that the children are studying in college and that they would need some more time for shifting to new premises with the amount of compensation now offered. There is force in this submission.
8. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from the premises till 30th of April 2019. It is specifically made known to petitioners if the petitioners fail to deliver peaceful possession of the property to respondents 3 & 4 on or before 30th April 2019, the said conduct shall be construed to be an act amounting to Contempt of Court and the petitioners may be disentitled to receive any more compensation even if the appeal of the respondents 3 & 4 before the Deputy Commissioner fails.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/