SMT. B SHANTHAKUMARI KRISHNAMRAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI.H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1, SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3, SMT.SUMAN BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ---- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEXURE-K AND IN THE ALTERNATIVELY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS FOR PAYMENT OF SUITABLE COMPENSATION AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.6892/2009 FORTHWITH. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 ORDER Heard the Counsel for the parties.

2. It is the petitioner’s grievance that he was the owner of the premises bearing no.56/4, I main road, Lakshmipuram, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008, measuring 22 feet on the north, 21 ½ feet on the south, 28 feet on the east and 25 feet on the west. The same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated

31.1.1979. The petitioner had put up a three-storied structure after obtaining sanctions from the competent authority. The petitioner had rented out the building to various tenants except the I floor which was occupied by the petitioner. The first respondent had issued a Circular dated 5.8.2008 informing the petitioner that the property in question was proposed to be acquired along with other properties for the purposes of its Metro Rail Project. The notice was issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ((hereinafter referred to as the 'KIADB Act' for short). Pursuant to the same, a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) and (3) ought to have been issued. However, no such procedure was followed. But a notification under Section 28(6) 4 was issued by the third respondent seeking to acquire the petitioner’s property measuring 34 square metres or 576 feet. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16961/2008. During the pendency of the petition, the third respondent is said to have taken possession of an extent of 110.50 square feet out of the total extent of 576 square feet. Thereafter, the third respondent had issued yet another notice dated 20.01.2009 purportedly under Section 28(2) of the KIADB Act calling for objections if any, in respect of a proposal for acquisition of a further extent of 2.40 square metres or 7.58 square feet of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner had filed yet another Writ Petition pursuant to the same in W.P.NO.6892/2009 while contending that the respondents seeking to acquire portions of the property of the petitioner would render the remnant extent of land useless for the petitioner and sought that the entire extent of the property may be acquired, if at all. The petition in W.P.No.6892/2009 was disposed of directing that the petitioner may seek higher compensation. But however since the petitioner did not receive any compensation for the extent of land measuring 2.40 square 5 metres and since the petitioner wanted to put up further construction in respect of the remaining portion which was not acquired by the respondents had addressed the respondents in this regard. However, the respondent disputed that there was any remaining extent of land available to the petitioner. It is this which is the bone of contention in the petitioner seeking to assert that there remains an extent of 17.67 square metres of land even after the acquisition by the respondent is taken into account, that the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and filed statement of objections to contend that the respondent would stand by the assertion that there is no remaining extent of land available to the petitioner and the entire extent of the property has been acquired. It is stated that acquisition proceedings were initiated in accordance with law and the contention that respondent has not followed the procedure is incorrect. The notification dated 15.1.2009 was duly gazetted as being under Section 1(3), 3(1) and 28(1) of the KIADB Act and the respondent no.3 has caused 28(2) notice to the petitioner inviting objections. The same has been 6 published in the daily newspapers. The petitioner did not file any objections nor participated in the enquiry and the State Government being satisfied with the need of the land for a public purpose had issued a final notification and respondent no.3 has paid compensation of a substantial sum of Rs.24,83,352/- in respect of 34 square metres under the final notification dated 1.12.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner’s claim that she is the owner of property measuring 576 square feet would be a extent of 54.07 square metres. In the first instance, 34 square metres was notified and acquired, that was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.16961/2008. Subsequently, yet another extent of 2.40 square metres was notified which was also challenged by the petitioner in yet another Writ Petition in W.P.No.6892/2009. It is at the time of hearing of those Writ Petitions that the petitioner had sought for acquisitions of the entire land as the remaining extent would be useless to the petitioner Accepting such a request, a survey was carried out jointly by the City Survey Officer and the Surveyors of the Bangalore Metro Rail Project in respect of the property and the entire extent available was only 45.37 square 7 metres. Accordingly, a final notification was issued acquiring the land. The remaining extent was an area of 16.40 square metres according to the petitioner, however, 34 square metres was the subject matter of first notification. Therefore, it is reiterated and asserted that there is no extent of land beyond

45.37 square metres available for the petitioner to have any grievance. The total extent is not 54.07 square metres, as sought to be urged by the petitioner but it is only 45.37 square metres. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is making a futile attempt to lay claim to a non-existent extent of land and therefore, the petition would have to be dismissed, as it gives rise to a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated before this Court and in the light of the joint measurements carried out in the survey and there is no additional extent of land of the petitioner available.

4. In the above background, it not in dispute that the petitioner was not taken into confidence at the time of joint survey that was conducted in respect of the property in question, atleast, there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the process. Since the 8 petitioner’s title deed does indicate that the extent purchased was 54.07 metres or 576 square feet which ought to be reconciled with the measurements that have been arrived at in the joint survey conducted by the respondent along with the City Survey Officer. And as there was apparently no opportunity granted to the petitioner to participate at that survey, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, even at this point of time, if a further joint survey is conducted in the presence of the petitioner and if it transpires that there is any additional land that has been overlooked in the earlier survey conducted, the petitioner would be entitled to appropriate compensation in respect of such additional land. Therefore, at the cost of the petitioner, a joint survey shall be conducted by the City Survey Officer along with the Survey Officer of the respondent – Bangalore Metro Rail Project on a date to be fixed by the respondent with notice to the petitioner along with the City Survey Officer and a survey to be carried out in respect of the petitioner’s property. If it is found that any additional land is available, it would be necessary for the respondent – Corporation to take further steps in acquiring the 9 same and paying the appropriate compensation to petitioner. This exercise shall be carried out within a reasonable time, in any event, within a period of eight weeks if not earlier from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the entire expenditure of this exercise shall be at the cost of the petitioner which shall be collected in advance before the survey is carried out. SD/- JUDGE