IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.5827/2015(LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SMT. VEDAVATHI RAMANNA D/O SRI. U.B. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.986/A12, 11TH CROSS MARUTHI LAYOUT DASARAHALLI VILLAGE K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 024.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMETN DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. BANGALOER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER P. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. THE ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PROHIBIT THE R-2 & R-3 FROM INTERFERING WITH PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.12, OLD HOUSE LIST KATHA NO.648 AND NEW HOUSE LIST, BBMP KATHA NO.986-A/648, SITUATED AT 11TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 65 FT. AND NORTH TO SOUTH 40 FT, WHICH IS THE PART AND PARCEL OF 20 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.79 OF DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, NOT SUBJECTED FOR ACQUISITION AS PER ENDORSEMENT DATED:02.04.2008 (ANNEX-P).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is seeking for a writ of prohibition being issued against respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing site No.12 situated at Maruthi Layout, Dasarahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to West 65 Ft. and North to South 40 Ft. which is said to be part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.79 of Dasarahalli Village.
2. It is the contention of petitioner that she is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property and in the light of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.79 not being the subject matter of acquisition under the notification dated 18.06.2014, said property belonging to the petitioner being carved out of Sy.No.79 measuring 20 guntas, BDA should not interfere with her possession or make any attempts to dispossess the petitioner from schedule property.
3. It is the case of petitioner that site/property over which she is claiming right, title and interest is sought to be included in the notification dated 18.06.2014 and in order to substantiate her claim in this regard, petitioner has relied upon the endorsement dated 02.04.2008- Annexure-P issued by second respondent. A plain reading of same would indicate that respondents have intimated the mother of petitioner that land to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.79 of Dasarahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk has not been acquired. It is also intimated thereunder that exact location of 20 guntas in the said Sy.No.79 is not available with them for the present and on such identification it would be intimated.
4. Sri. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for BDA has brought to the notice of Court layout working plan insofar as it relates to Dasarahalli village bearing Sy.No.79 wherein certain pockets lands have been left out from being acquired. Thus, it is for the BDA to state as to whether land belonging to petitioner or claiming by the petitioner, would fall within 20 guntas of land which has not been notified or would fall out side said 20 guntas of land.
5. In the light of stand taken by BDA in the endorsement dated 02.04.2008 and there being lack of clarity with regard to identification of the property belonging to petitioner namely, as to whether it would fall within 20 guntas of land or out side 20 guntas of land, an exercise will have to be undertaken by BDA by holding spot inspection or conducting survey to arrive at a conclusion and it can be done only on spot inspection being conducted. Since this exercise having not been undertaken by BDA as admitted by them in their endorsement, it would suffice to issue direction to BDA to undertake such an exercise and till then to protect the possession of petitioner.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(2) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondents-BDA directing them to verify as to whether site in respect of which petitioner is basing her title under the Gift Deed dated 28.01.2012 in Sy.No.79, would fall within 20 guntas of land, which has not been acquired by conducting a spot inspection and an endorsement be issued to petitioner after undertaking such exercise by enclosing the sketch.
(3) It is made clear that in the event of site/property belonging to petitioner would fall within 20 guntas of land, which has not been notified for acquisition, respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of petitioner.
(4) On the other hand, if it is found that any portion is acquired, details thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner along with sketch so as to enable the petitioner to take such steps as provided under law. However, till such exercise is undertaken, possession of petitioner shall not be disturbed and petitioner shall not alter or construct and or encumber the property in any manner whatsoever.
(5) If petitioner were undertake any addition or construction over the property in question, respondents-BDA would be at liberty to take such steps as provided under law to prevent such construction.
SD/- JUDGE RU