Allowed

Smt Buvaneshwari v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2012WP/12491/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation for building relocation under the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Rehabilitation Package. The High Court directed the respondent to hear the petitioner, determine the actual date of dispossession, and decide on compensation entitlement within four weeks if dispossession occurred earlier.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were granted two weeks to file a detailed representation on the date of dispossession; the respondent must hear the petitioner and decide on compensation within four weeks.

Smt Buvaneshwari Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 12491/2012 (LA-KIADB)*

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT BUVANESHWARI, PROPRIETOR OF SRI NAGA MOTORS, NO. SF-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUPRA ASSENT, ROAD NO.4, DEFENCE LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 097

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB 3RD FLOOR, KHENEY BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,

¶14

_ Corrected vide chamber order dated 23.08.2012_*

¶15

¶16

3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.V. SABARAD, ADV. FOR R1 SRI VASANTH K., ADV.FOR SRI K.KRISHNA FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TOWARDS BUILDING WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO AS PER THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION REHABILITATION PACKAGE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AT SY. NO. 42/2 PEENYA, THUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH TQ.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to pay compensation towards the building for relocation, which according to the petitioner he is entitled to under the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Rehabilitation Package. The respondents have filed their objection statement and opposed the claim putforth in the petition.

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that, he was running an automobile service Centre/garage in a vacant land measuring 34.75 mtrs. East to West and 27 mtrs. North to South in Sy. No. 42/2, Peenya Village, Tumkur Road, Bangalore under a lease agreement dated 13.07.1988 entered into with the landlord. The said land bearing Sy. No. 42/2 was also acquired for the Bangalore Metro Rail project through the Karnataka Industrial Area Development, KIADB for short. In that regard, a notification dated 16.10.2009 was issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act. Subsequently, the notice dated 22.10.2009 has also been issued under Section 28(6) of the Act.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that, since he had to vacate

¶27

the property in view of the said acquisition, he is entitled to the

¶28

¶29

rehabilitation amount provided to be paid to the tenants under the package. In that regard, it is further contended that, though the landlord of the petitioner had instituted a suit for ejectment in O.S. No. 8188/2006, at that stage the acquisition process was in progress and therefore he had not defended the suit effectively. In any event, the ejectment, which was ordered by the trial Court was questioned by the petitioner in R.F.A. No. 210/2010. In the pending appeal, the petitioner had been granted time till 31.03.2011 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises by the judgment passed on 05.10.2010.

¶30

In that context, the petitioner contends that, since in any event, when he had time to vacate the premises in question till 31.03.2011 and when the respondents in fact had taken possession of the property earlier to that date and demolished the structures which was put up, he was entitled to the compensation under the rehabilitation package. In that regard, a representation was made but the 2nd respondent by their communication dated 05.08.2011 have in

¶31

¶32

fact denied the relief to the petitioner by indicating that, in any event, he had to vacate the premises as provided in the order passed in R.F.A. No. 210/2010 and therefore he is not entitled to the compensation under the rehabilitation package.

¶33

The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner in the objection as well as while presenting their case before this Court. It is their contention that, the physical possession of the property was taken on 09.04.2011, which is after the date, namely 31.03.2011, the time which had been granted by this Court in R.F.A. No. 210/2010. It is their case that, in such circumstance, when he had to vacate the premises, in any event the question of granting rehabilitation amount would not arise as the hardship faced by the petitioner is not due to the act of the respondents but due to the action taken by the landlord. It is further contended that, the petitioner would not be entitled for any compensation in the instant case and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

¶35

In the light of the rival contentions, firstly what is to be

¶36

noticed is the actual time up to which the petitioner has in fact remained in possession of the property not withstanding the fact that this Court by the judgment dated 05.10.2010 had granted time up to 31.03.2011. The said judgment at the outset would indicate that, in law the petitioner was entitled to remain in the premises till 31.03.2011. Therefore, if the petitioner had been dispossessed at an earlier point in time to the said date, the petitioner would still be entitled to the benefits as his relocation would be unscheduled in as much as otherwise, he could have planned his relocation since, he had time till 31.03.2011. Hence, what becomes important is as to whether in fact the respondents have taken physical possession on 09.04.2011 as contended by them. In that regard, no material document is placed before this Court to indicate that physical possession in fact was taken on 09.04.2011. However, the petitioner contends that, the premises therein was utilized when similar such lands in the area was taken possession and construction demolished which according to him is prior to 31.03.2011. Hence, the date would be relevant. However, in

¶37

¶38

the absence of the material to pin point the date, on which the petitioner was actually dispossessed from the property, this matter would have to be looked into by the respondents.

¶39

Prima facie, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would have to be seen that the notification issued under Section 28(4) and 28(6) of the Act on 16.10.2009 and 22.10.2009 respectively indicates that, the possession would be taken in 30 days i.e. on 22.11.2009. Under the scheme of the KIADB Act, the land would vest on issuing the 28(4) notification. Not withstanding the same, the fact as to whether, the petitioner had continued in the premises subsequently is an issue which will have to be decided by the respondents. Therefore, the said aspect of the matter is left open to be decided by the respondents. However, insofar as the case of the petitioner that, he is entitled to the compensation amount under the rehabilitation package, it is held that in the manner as indicated above, since the petitioner had the right to stay in the premises till 31.03.2011 and if the fact of dispossession as earlier to the said date is established

¶40

¶41

by the petitioner before the respondents, while reconsidering the matter, the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation under the rehabilitation package taking into consideration the date of the dispossession and the date till he was entitled to remain in possession i.e. 31.03.2011.

¶42

Therefore, in respect of such right, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the respondent no.2 by taking into consideration the material available with them and also the material that may be produced by the petitioner to enable consideration. It would be appropriate that the petitioner be heard in the mater and thereafter appropriate orders be passed. Considering that the matter has been lingering for quite some time and if the petitioner is entitled for compensation under rehabilitation, the same be available at the earliest, the matter be decided in a time frame.

¶43

Hence, the petitioner is granted two weeks time to file the detailed representation with the 2nd respondent indicating the date of

¶44

¶45

dispossession relying on the records available with the petitioner. On receipt of the said representation, the 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner and take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law keeping in view the above observation within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioner’s representation. Needless to mention that, if the 2nd respondent arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, the same shall also be disbursed to the petitioner thereafter as expeditiously as possible.

¶46

In terms of the above, the petition is allowed in part. No

¶47

costs.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

ST*

Smt Buvaneshwari v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Buvaneshwari v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mrs Yashodha Rao Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

V G Deshpande Vs C G Deshpande

Sri R v Manjunatha Gowda Vs Sri G Lakshmeesha

Anjanappa S/O Late Thammannappa Vs State of Karnataka

Kum U Eashitha Vs State of Karnataka