SRI. KRISHNAN S v. THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNX-L ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 19.07.2019 AND ETC., - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure-L) issued by respondent No.2, inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent/BDA consider representation dated

12.02.2019 (Annexure-K).

The relevant facts for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing site No.14/1, formed in Sy.No.4/5, situated Kembhathalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 17.01.1996 (Annexure-A).

It is stated the writ petition that, respondent/authority has issued Final Notification dated

21.03.2002 and acquired the land bearing Sy.No.4/5 for the purpose of formation of further extension of Anjanapura layout and as such, the petitioner has filed objection, pursuant to the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 issuance of Preliminary Notification, seeking deletion of the site in question on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of the site.

It is also stated in the petition that, despite that the objection has been filed by the petitioner to the Preliminary Notification, respondent/authority has issued Final Notification and acquired the land belonging to the petitioner and as such, issued notice under Section 9 and 10 of Land Acquisition Act on 11.04.2002, directing the petitioner to approach the respondent/authority.

It is contended by the petitioner that, the petitioner has not received compensation in view of the said acquisition and further under similar consideration, the site formed in the very same survey number namely Sy.No.4/5 of Kembhathalli Village belonging to one B.G.Sridhar, the respondent/BDA has accepted the representation made by the said B.G.Sridhar and passed order dated 29.01.2013 and observed that the said land loser is entitled for alternative site (Annexure-E).

It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though the petitioner herein has made a representation - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 respondent/authority to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the site belonging to the petitioner, however, the respondent/authority came to know that the award amount has been deposited before the Principal City Civil Court, Bangalore, as per Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, being aggrieved by the Endorsement dated

19.07.2019 (Annexure-L), petitioner has approached this Court.

Heard Sri. Vasanth Kumar H.T, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/BDA.

Sri. Vasanth Kumar H.T, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the reasons assigned by the respondent/BDA rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site is contrary to the law declared by this Court in the case of JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, reported ILR 2005 KAR 608 and further, it is argued that, though the petitioner has purchased the subject land as per the registered sale deed dated 17.01.1996 and therefore, the reasons - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 assigned by the respondent/BDA rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site is not correct. Accordingly sought for interference of this Court by referring to the notice dated 23.03.2002 (Annexure-C).

Per contra, Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel representing the respondent-BDA, submitted that, though the petitioner has purchased the revenue site No.14/1 as per registered sale deed dated 17.01.1996, however, khatha of the scheduled site has not been mutated in favour of the petitioner, nor the petitioner has paid tax to the Competent Authority and as such, the petitioner has to establish his title before the Competent Civil Court and accordingly, sought to justify the action of the respondent/BDA by issuing an impugned endorsement dated 19.07.2019.

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, undisputably the petitioner has purchased the site bearing No.14/1, which is formed in Sy.No.4/5 situated at Kembhathalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as per registered sale deed dated 17.01.1996 (Annexure-A) and the respondent/authority has issued Final - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 Notification dated 21.03.2002, sought to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner. Undisputably, name of the petitioner is absent in the acquisition proceedings. Notification is said to have been issued by the respondent/BDA. However, perusal of the Annexure-C dated 23.03.2002, wherein, the respondent has issued notice, calling upon the petitioner to file objections to the acquisition proceedings.

In that view of the matter, the respondent-authority is well aware about the fact that, the petitioner is the owner of the subject site No.14/1, found in Sy.No.4/5 of Kembhathalli Village. In that view of the matter, having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in a identical case in respect of the very same survey No.4/5 of Kembhathalli Village, respondent/BDA has issued order dated 29.01.2013 and has accorded permission to allot alternative site to one B.G.Sridhar (Annexure-E) and allotment letter has been made on 12.02.2016 (Annexure-F). In that view of the matter, relegating the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court as the amount of compensation has been deposited is without considering the plea made by the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43342 WP No. 4025 of 2020 petitioner for seeking allotment of alternative site, cannot be accepted.