IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.57375-57376/2016 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. THRIVIKRAM NAIDU S/O. CANACARAYALU NAIDU, AGE 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 043.
2. HEMA NAIDU @ HEMA RAO W/O. CANACARAYALU NAIDU, AGE 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/2, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 043. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: HEGDE V.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESDENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAM DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 020, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOUDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE – 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR A. PATIL, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOUTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS ON 22.07.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DTD:28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These writ petitions are listed for considering I.A.No.I/2017, which is an application filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), seeking vacating of the interim order dated 10/11/2016. On that day, this court directed both parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the petition schedule properties for a period of six weeks and thereafter, the interim order has been continued till 30/11/2017.
2. Learned senior counsel for respondent – BDA submits that the prayer in the writ petitions is for consideration of a representation made by the petitioners on 28/07/2016 to third respondent, as per Annexure “M”. The said representation is made for seeking a fair compensation in respect of the schedule properties being utilized for the purpose of formation of widening of road in the adjoining fly over at Hennur. He submits that petitioners have incidentally assailed notice dated 22/07/2016 (Annexure “L”) whereas, petitioners does not have any strong objection for utilizing the schedule properties for the aforesaid purpose. He also submits that respondent – BDA should consider their representation in accordance with law, but the order of status – quo granted by this court is coming in the way of implementation of the project. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel seeks vacating of the interim order of status – quo.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that both the schedule properties may be utilized for the purpose of widening of the road and generally, for the project in question. Nevertheless, petitioners cannot be deprived of a fair compensation. As the schedule property is not a subject matter of acquisition, in the circumstances, petitioners would expect respondent – BDA to award a fair compensation to them for utilization of 2211 square feet of the schedule properties. Therefore, he submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in a fair manner and award fair compensation to them.
4. Having regard to the nature of the prayer sought by the petitioners and also, bearing in mind the fact that petitioners are not really aggrieved by utilization of the schedule properties for the purpose of widening of the road and generally for the purpose of the project and only expect a fair return for the said utilization of the land. I find that the interim order passed in the instant case, has really come in the way of the respondents’ implementation of the project. Therefore, the writ petitions itself have to be disposed of with a direction to the second and third respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 28/07/2016, in accordance with law and in an expeditious manner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Hence, I find that in the circumstances, the interim order would not be required to be continued any longer.
5. It is clarified that respondent – BDA would act in a fair manner, pass a speaking order on consideration of the representation made by the petitioners in an expeditious manner particularly, if the respondents are to utilize the schedule properties. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed in the aforesaid terms.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.I/2017 also stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs