Allowed

Narasoji Rao v. Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2014WP/3000/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226/227, the High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition challenging an endorsement denying an alternative site. The court held that parity of reasoning applicable to the petitioner's brother mandated granting the petitioner a 40x60 feet site, quashing the rejection order and directing the BDA to allot the land.

What did the court decide?

Quashed endorsement dated 13.11.2013; directed BDA to grant 40x60 feet site within two months; denied request for additional 20x30 feet site.

Narasoji Rao Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 3000 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Narasoji Rao, Aged about 72 years, Son of Late Narasoji Rao, Residing at No.11, Ullalu, Ullalu Upa-Nagar, Yashwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 056.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.

¶13

The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West,

¶14

¶15

Bangalore – 560 020.

¶16

State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Ambedkar Road, Represented by its Secretary.

¶17

[cause title amended as

¶18

per court order dated 21.1.2014]

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Shri. A.M. Vijay, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri. H. Anantha, Government Pleader for Respondent No.3)

¶21

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement dated 13.11.2013 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-C and to direct the respondents to allot two sites one measuring 40 x 60 feet and another measuring 20 x 30 feet to the petitioner as per the Bangalore Development Authority (incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of land) Rules 1989, in the SIR M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout or any other near by Layout.

¶23

This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶26

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court in the following

¶29

circumstances:

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that he and his brother Narasinga Rao were owners in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas of Ullal village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The same was acquired by the respondents for the formation of Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout under proceedings initiated vide preliminary notification dated 15.04.2002 and a final notification dated 31.10.2002 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authorities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity). The petitioner and his brother are said to have consented for the acquisition and the respondents took possession of the land on 16.01.2003 and passed an award, by which the petitioner was found entitled to compensation in respect of 1 acre 12 guntas of land. Incidentally, there was a residential house constructed over the land even prior to the acquisition proceedings and it was

¶31

¶32

represented by the respondent – BDA that the same be given up in equal measure in favour of the petitioner and his brother. Accordingly, out of the lands notified for acquisition in a total extent of 1 acre 12 guntas belonging to the petitioner, 5 ½ guntas was not taken possession of and it is only 1 acre and 6 ½ guntas which was notified for acquisition and award was passed. The compensation was deposited before the Civil Court and it was held that the petitioner was entitled for compensation to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas as per the award dated 29.09.2011 and his brother Narasinga Rao was held entitled to the remaining extent of 1 acre 12 guntas. Further, as there was a house over the said land extending over 5 ½ guntas, the respondents did not take possession of the said extent and awarded compensation only in respect of an extent of 1 acre 6 ½ guntas and the petitioner did not oppose the same and the land was voluntarily surrendered. Thereafter, he had made a representation seeking that he be provided a site as he was entitled to the same under the Bangalore Development

¶33

¶34

Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of land) Rules, 1989 and to consider his case.

¶35

Though the representation was acknowledged, it was

¶36

rejected by an endorsement dated 13.11.2013 on the footing that since 5 ½ guntas of land was not taken possession of though it was notified for acquisition and was included in the 1 acre 12 guntas and since the same was given up in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of a further incentive by way of an alternative site. The petitioner therefore is before this Court contending that the petitioner could even claim two sites, one measuring 40’ x 60’ and another measuring 20’ x 30’ in terms of the Rules, and the denial by the respondents therefore is unfair.

¶37

It is further contended that a similar endorsement had been issued in favour of his brother who was similarly placed as the petitioner. The same having been challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition, was allowed in W.P.No.22610/2010 dated 2.2.2012 and the respondent – BDA

¶38

¶39

has thereafter granted a site in favour of the brother of the petitioner. Hence, he claims that he would also be entitled to a site by a parity of reasoning and that the denial is arbitrary and contrary to the Rule which confers the benefit.

¶40

The BDA has entered appearance through counsel and

¶41

has filed Statement of objections.

¶42

Though it is again reiterated that the petitioner would not be entitled to any such benefit since 5 ½ guntas of land was given up in his favour, the fact remains that the petitioner’s brother who was similarly placed was conferred with a site. This by hindsight is now confirmed by the BDA as the learned counsel has secured the records and would not deny the factual position and further that the Rule as applicable to the petitioner’s brother could also be applied to the petitioner.

¶43

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Annexure-

¶44

“C” stands quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to a site measuring 40’ x 60’ though the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a further site measuring 20’ x 30’. Consequently, the

¶45

¶46

respondent –BDA shall grant the petitioner a site measuring 40’ x 60’ and execute all necessary documentation to convey title in favour of the petitioner expeditiously, in any event within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Narasoji Rao v. Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasoji Rao v. Bangalore Development Authority

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

Schneider Electric It Businees India Private Ltd. Vs Nill

M/S Pearl Metal Products (Bangalore) Private Vs Nil

M/S Pearl Insulations Private Limited Vs Nil

Bilu C Scaria Vs the State of Karnataka

Anupriya James Vs State of Karnataka

Ms D Souiza Vilma Alex Vs the State of Karnataka