Allowed

Smt. Sharadamma v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2016WP/5264/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge directed BDA to allot two identified vacant sites to acquisition petitioners as alternative land, imposing condition to pay 12% annual interest on compensation if earlier deposited in Civil Court, while explicitly disavowing the order as an applicable precedent. Quality is thin.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BDA to allot Sites 970 & 971 within 4 weeks and execute conveyance, payable subject to 12% interest on compensation if deposited.

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Bangalore Development Authority — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.5262-5263 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.5264-5265 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶9

IN W.P.Nos.5262-5263 OF 2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Sri. S. Subramani, Son of Late Sri. Singaravelu, Aged about 67 years, Residing at No.29, Near 7^th Main Road, Doddabyrappa Street, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(By Shri Roopesha B., Advocate) AND:

¶14

The Bangalore Development Authority,

¶15

¶16

T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.

¶17

The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri Sachin B.S., Advocate for Respondent No.1; Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶20

¶21

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the respondent authority in respect of site bearing No.49, carved out in Sy.No.29/3 of Matadahalli Village, now called as R.T.Nagar, Bangalore and to quash the endorsement dated 8.5.2012 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-J in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner and etc;

¶22

IN W.P.Nos.5264-5265 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

Smt. Sharadamma, Wife of Late Sri. Singaravelu, Aged about 96 years, Residing at No.29, Near 7^th Main Road,

¶25

¶26

Doddabyrappa Street, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶27

…PETITIONER

¶28

(By Shri Roopesha B., Advocate)

¶29

AND:

¶30

The Bangalore Development Authority,

¶31

T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020, Represented by its Commissioner.

¶32

The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(By Shri Sachin B.S., Advocate for Respondent No.1; Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶35

¶36

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the respondent authority in respect of site bearing No.44, carved out in Sy.No.29/3 of Matadahalli Village, now called as R.T.Nagar, Bangalore and to quash the endorsement dated 8.5.2012 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-K in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner and etc;

¶37

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to the circumstances of the case.

¶41

It is the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 1971. The petitioners were not very keen on receiving the compensation amount, but requested that alternative land be offered. The sites that were acquired by the petitioners measured 30’ x 40’. It transpires that the petitioners had made futile attempts to seek allotment of alternative sites and ultimately have filed the present petitions.

¶42

The petitioners have also taken the initiative of identifying two alternative sites, in each of these petitions and had sought that the same be allotted to the petitioners. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), after having taken time to ascertain as to whether there was any controversy

¶43

¶44

surrounding the vacant sites, would now report that there is no controversy in respect of the vacant sites.

¶45

The learned counsel for the BDA would point out that

¶46

the petitioners are before this court a full 45 years after the land of the petitioners was acquired and compensation amount having been deposited in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot have the dual benefit of receiving the compensation amount and also seeking alternative sites. There is no provision of law under which any such alternative sites could be allotted. Merely because vacant sites are available, the petitioners cannot claim the same as a matter of right. There is no legal provision under which it can be granted and it would set a dangerous precedent where every land owner would seek such alternative site. This would lead to loss of land that is acquired by the BDA and hence seeks that the petition be disposed of with a direction to pay compensation to the petitioners, if they have not already received.

¶47

¶48

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶49

draw attention to Annexure – N in the respective petitions, which pertains to similarly placed persons such as the petitioners, whose revenue sites had been acquired and on they approaching this court and this court having directed that alternative sites be provided, it was, in fact, provided by the BDA though after much resistance. In that, the order of the learned Single Judge was unsuccessfully challenged by way of an appeal before a Division Bench and thereafter by way of a Special Leave Petition and the direction issued by this court having been affirmed, by the same token of reasoning, the present petitioners would also be entitled to alternative sites notwithstanding the delay in approaching this court at this point of time.

¶50

Since the BDA has issued an endorsement as to their

¶51

repeated requests and demands for alternatives sites only in the year 2012, the present petitions being filed only in the year 2016, again does not satisfactorily explain the delay on the part

¶52

¶53

of the petitioners. However, in the interest of justice, the same is considered and having regard to the fortunate circumstance that there are vacant sites available, the BDA is directed to put the petitioners in possession of the said vacant sites and execute appropriate conveyances in their favour with expedition and in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is established that the BDA allegedly having deposited the amount in a Civil Court, the petitioners had refused to receive the compensation amount, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on the compensation amount so deposited from the date of deposit till date. Accordingly, the BDA on collecting the interest at 12% per annum on the compensation amount so deposited, shall execute the conveyance in favour of the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sites no.970 and 971, in I Block, 9^th G Main Road, HRBR Layout, Bangalore, which are now identified, shall be allotted to the

¶54

¶55

petitioner in 5264-65/2016 and the petitioner in WP 526263/2016, respectively.

¶56

It is also made clear that the present judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The added circumstance that there were vacant sites available has placed the petitioners on a different footing and unless there are such vacant sites available, it would not be possible to consider every other petitioners case who may come before this court.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Smt. Sharadamma v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharadamma v. the 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

Sri.M.Ishwara Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Vikram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H.M. Nagaraj Vs Bangalore Development Authority

G Narayan Reddy Vs State of Karnataka