SRI. GOPAL v. BILALMANE
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15709 OF 2021 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE ABBAIAH R/A NO.699, KANAKAPURA ROAD JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK BANGALORE. 2. SRI BALAYOGI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE ABBAIAH R/A OLD NO.22, NEW NO.22/1 2ND MAIN, OLD GURUPPANAPALYA BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029. 3. SRI SURESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE ABBAIAH R/A NO.699, KANAKAPURA ROAD JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK BANGALORE. 4. SMT SUMITHRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE ABBAIAH R/A NO.699, KANAKAPURA ROAD JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK BANGALORE. 5. SMT SUNANDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 W/O LATE UDAY KUMAR R/A NO.699 KANAKAPURA ROAD JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK BANGALORE
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. K SREEDHAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., B M T C COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND ESTATE. (BY SRI. N.R. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOPAL V. BILALMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. N.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.03.2021 AT ANNEXURE-K AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND SUSTAINABLE AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R3 TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF 730 SQ.MTRS AREA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of one late Abbaiah who was the erstwhile owner of land measuring 27 guntas in Sy.No.14/10 and 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/4, are before this Court seeking following reliefs: "I) Quash by issue of writ of certiorari the endorsement No.BMRCL/bu swa hanta2/reach5/ 89a/89b/20-21/12027 at Annexure-K as the same is illegal arbitrary and the 3rd sustainable and respondent to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of 730 Sq. Mtrs area. issue direction 12.03.2021 dated to II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st & 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of the compensation at the rate of the present market rate to be fixed under section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 in respect of area in Sy.No.14/10 and 12/4 Tavarekere village, Begur Hobli, South Bangalore South Taluk to an extent of 27 guntas and 5 guntas excluding the area of 4000 Sq. Ft which is in the possession of the petitioners and also excluding 730 Sq. Mtrs area acquired by the third Respondent." 2. Case of the petitioners is that the respondent-BDA had sought to acquire the aforesaid lands in terms of preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 and final notification dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 09.03.1978. That the notified khathedar of the aforesaid property admittedly being Abbaiah had passed away during the year 1976 much prior to the issuance of preliminary notification and final notification. Neither the notices nor the notifications were issued or published reflecting the names of petitioners who are the legal representatives of the said notified khathedar. Neither any notice was served on the petitioners nor any award was passed nor the possession was taken. As such, the acquisition is not completed in the manner known to law. It is contended that the petitioners despite issuance of said notifications continued to be in possession of the property till date and non compliance with the statutory requirements in the nature of passing the award and taking the possession has resulted in the said acquisition becoming ineffective. 3. Things stood thus, it is submitted that subsequently respondent No.3-BMRCL has utilised aforesaid the land in Sy.No.14/10 and Sy.No.12/4 without acquiring the same. As such the respondent No.3-BMRCL is liable to pay the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and taking this Court through the records, submits that even while passing the award as found at Annexure-C to the writ petition, the SLAO has appreciated that the original owner/notified khathedar of the acquired land was Abbaiah, S/o Muniswamappa and that records did not reveal regarding any notice having been issued to the legal representatives of said Abbaiah. Thus referring to the same, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently submits that when the SLAO himself was having clear particulars about the ownership of the land, there was no reason for him to have passed the award in favour of certain Ramaiah, who claimed to be the legal representative of Abbaiah. Thus, he submits that such an award is not an award in the eyes of law, as such acquisition cannot be held to have been completed in the manner known to law by the respondent-BDA. He submits in the light of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter petitioners had made representation as per Annexure-D dated 06.03.2019 to the respondent-BMRCL seeking for payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. That in response to the same respondent-BMRCL had declined to consider the representation on the premise that they have not acquired/utilised the land in Sy.No.14/10 or Sy.No.12/4, which is incorrect. Hence, he submits petition be allowed directing respondent -BMRCL to pay the compensation. 5. In response learned counsel for the respondent-BDA taking this Court through the contents of objection statement and documents enclosed therewith more particularly documents produced at Annexure-R-4 and R-5 being representations dated 06.08.1980 submitted by the petitioner-Jayamma, W/o Abbaiah, the notified khathedar, wherein she had sought for payment of compensation pleading to be the owner of property in Sy.Nos.14/10 and 12/4. He refers to award notice at Annexure-R-6 dated 21.10.1980 wherein a sum of Rs.12,420/- having been determined as compensation, the said Jayamma was called upon to receive the same. Said notice has been received by said Jayamma. Annexure-R-7 is the certificate issued by the Financial Assistant of BDA which evidence the fact of said sum of Rs.12,420/- having been received by Jayamma in respect of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/10. Thus, referring - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 to these documents learned counsel for respondent-BDA submits that said Jayamma, legal representative of Abbaiah has received the compensation voluntarily. As such the subsequent claim made now is unsustainable. Learned counsel for respondent-BDA further submits that document at Annexure-R- 9 would indicate that lands in Sy.No.14/10 and Sy.No.12/4 have been utilized for the formation of road. 6. As regards claim for compensation in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/4 learned counsel for respondent- BDA refers to the Judgment passed in LAC No.72/86 dated 16.08.1991 produced at Annexure-R8 and submits that the said proceedings were concerning payment of compensation in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/4 and said amount has been paid/deposited by the respondent-BDA into the Court and disbursement if any must have been made pursuant to the said Judgment. He submits respondent-BDA thus has acted strictly in accordance with law and the acquisition is completed complying with the requirements within the timeline stipulated under the statute warranting no interference. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 7. Sri.N.N.Harish, learned counsel for BMRCL appearing through video conferencing submits that BMRCL has not utilised any portion of land in Sy.No.14/10 and Sy.No.12/4 as sought to be made out by the petitioner. He submits that the land utilised by BMRCL formed part of site Nos.R5-89, R5-89A and R5-89B which was reserved as a civic amenity site which formed part of Sy.No.14. He refers to a document produced at Annexure R-2 to the statement of objections wherein at Sl.No.10, details of the said CA sites are reflected. Referring to the same learned counsel submits that upon the requisition made by the petitioner- Jayamma seeking payment of compensation, appropriate reply as per communication dated 12.03.2021 at Annexure-K came to be issued clarifying that BMRCL had utilized the CA site belonging to the respondent- BDA and it has nothing to do either with the land in Sy.No.14/10 or Sy.No.12/4. He submits package compensation which was determined was paid to the respondent-BDA inasmuch as land utilised by BMRCL belonged to respondent- BDA. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 8. Heard and perused the records. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 9. Learned counsel for petitioners fairly submit that though the records furnished by respondent-BDA indicate that the compensation in respect of land in Sy.No.14/10 measuring 27 guntas appears to have been paid to Jayamma wife of Abbaiah, however the factual aspect of the matter being she continues to be in possession of land till the same was utilized by BMRCL. 10. As regards Sy.No.12/4 he submits even according to documents furnished by the respondent-BDA the compensation has been paid to some Ramaiah who is unconnected to notified khathedar. 11. From the Perusal of the records and on consideration of the submissions what emanates is that admittedly Jayamma the wife of Abbaiah, the notified khathedar had received the compensation in respect of Sy.No.14/10 measuring 27 guntas as far as back on 22.10.1980/17.12.1980 as evidenced by the certificate produced by respondent-BDA at Annexure-R-7 along with its statement of objections. Said certificate is preceded by the award notice and representation admittedly made by Jayamma. The award notice has been served on her on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 22.10.1980. As such claim in respect of said land in Sy.No.14/10 cannot be re-agitated as the acquisition is completed in the manner known to law. 12. With regard to claim of petitioner for compensation in respect of land in Sy.No.12/4 measuring 5 guntas is concerned copy of the Judgment dated 16.08.1991 passed in LAC No.72/86 produced at Annexure-R8 would indicate that there were certain proceedings initiated by certain Ramaiah and others against the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore. Said Judgment also indicate respondent-BDA had indeed deposited the compensation in respect of 5 guntas in Sy.No.12/4 before the said Court. It may be that pursuant to the said Judgment, as contended by respondent-BDA, compensation must have been disbursed to the persons named therein. That would be a case of apportionment of compensation the same cannot be a ground to reopen the acquisition at this belated stage. 13. Claim now being made by the petitioners is in respect of land used by BMRCL claiming it to be this land. Documents produced by BMRCL in their statement of objections would - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6399 WP No. 15709 of 2021 indicate that it appears to have utilised a civic amenity site which is formed by respondent-BDA and not the land claimed by the petitioners. 14. Though petitioners claim to be in possession of land in Sy.No.14/10 and Sy.No.12/4 even till date, such possession in the light of settled position of law would be one at sufferance and they are no more than trespassers, since the land on its acquisition has stood vested with the respondent-BDA. 15. However, since the petitioners claim that the compensation in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/4 has not reached their hands, it is for them to avail such remedy as may be available and permissible under law, if so advised.
Decision
With above observation petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16