Disposed

The Commissioner v. Smt. K. Pushpa

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024RP/215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA sought review of an order directing allotment of a compensatory site to a person whose acquired land was lost. The court rejected contentions on authority of the undertaking official and eligibility under the BDA resolution, accepted that sital value must be paid normatively, and permitted allotment in another layout, modifying the original order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Review disposed with modification permitting allotment of the compensatory site in some other layout, sital value payable normatively; other conditions of the original order intact.

The Commissioner Vs Smt. K. Pushpa — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 215 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-20.

¶9

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-20.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WEST DIVISION, VIJAYANAGAR, BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

SMT. K. PUSHPA, W/O K. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.240, NAGASANDRA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 028.

¶16

SRI.M MUNIRAMAIAH, S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA, R/AT NO.182, PANTHARAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE–560 039.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶19

SRI.G.CHANNARAYAPPA, S/O LATE GUMMAIAH, R/AT NO.21, PANTHARAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE–560 039.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H T VASANTH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION IF FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/02/2019 PASSED IN WP NO. 5984/2018 (LA-BDA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In Respondent’s W.P.No.5984/2018 (LA-BDA), this

¶27

Court had made the final order dated 07.02.2019 had granted reprieve. The same reads as under:

¶28

“The short grievance of the petitioner as to non-consideration of her claim for the grant of alternate site substantially is granted redressal by an undertaking which is incorporated in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-BDA. The said paragraphs read as under:

¶29

“2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to allot alternative site for having lost her site in an acquisition and to consider the official note of this authority dated 27-9-2006 vide Annexure-H to the writ petition. This Hon’ble Court by its

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶31

order dated 24-1-2019 has directed the Deputy Secretary shall appear before the Court on 7-2-2019 for explaining the circumstances that resulted into delaying the allotment of site to the petitioner. However it is observed that there shall be no need to personal presence, if in the meanwhile, in terms of the aforesaid Unofficial Note at Annexure-H, positive steps are taken from the side of the respondent BDA for allotment of the site to the petitioner.

¶32

3. I submit that in view of aforesaid observation I have taken steps to identify the site in the same layout and correspondence letter has been issued to the Engineering section to furnish the C.D.Report measuring 30x40. Now we are identifying the vacant site measuring 30x40 in the Nagarbhavi layout for allotment of the same to the petitioner. I also undertake that this authority will allot a site measuring 30x40 within 15 days and also undertake that I will execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner within one month.”

¶33

Keeping the above undertaking on record, this writ petition is disposed off.

¶34

No costs.”

¶35

This Review Petition seeks recall of the said

¶36

order inter alia on the ground that the BDA official who

¶37

had given undertaking that the Writ Petitioner who

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶40

happens to be the Respondent herein would be allotted a 30x40 site within 15 days and sale deed too be executed, had no authority to give such undertaking; secondly, the compensation in respect of entire land in which Writ Petitioner’s revenue sites are comprised, a compensation of Rs.3,95,377/- has been deposited in the jurisdictional Reference Court on 25.07.2007; thirdly, the land in question was acquired for construction of road and not for the formation of layout and therefore, compensatory sites cannot be granted; he adds that such sites can be granted

¶41

only when land is acquired for the purpose of layout; fourthly, the BDA Resolution dated 04.07.2006 which provides for the grant of compensatory site only in respect of lands utilized by the BDA sans acquisition process and therefore, Writ Petitioner cannot invoke the same; lastly, JUNJAMMA vs. BDA ILR 2005 KAR 608 is invokable

¶42

only when full sital value is agreed to be paid and not otherwise. With this submission, he seeks recall of the final order. Learned counsel appearing for the review –

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶45

Respondent repels the said contentions and makes submission in justification of the order in question.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Review Petition papers, I decline indulgence in the matter with a small modification of the order as under and for the following reasons:

¶47

a) The first contention of learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner-BDA that the land in question namely Sy.No.103 in all ad measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was acquired pursuant to Preliminary Notification dated 12.8.1982 followed by Final Notification dated 16.8.1985 and followed by making of the award dated 16.05.2002, is true. It is apparent from the record of the case itself. However, his offshoot contention that the land was acquired for the formation of road as such and not for the formation of layout, itself militates against the very terminology employed in the subject Notifications and therefore cannot be accepted. Therefore, the decisions of Apex Court to the effect that the compensatory sites can

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶50

be granted only when purpose of acquisition is for the

¶51

formation of layout, does not come to his aid.

¶52

b) The second contention of learned Sr. Panel Counsel that the BDA’s Resolution dated 4.7.2006 which provides for grant of compensatory house sites is confined to the cases in which private lands have been appropriated sans due acquisition process and therefore, the benefit of said resolution cannot be derived by the writ petitioner, is bit difficult to countenance. When the State acquires private land for a public purpose, it is one case and when land is appropriated without acquisition process, is another. There exists difference, is true. However, so far as invocation of the resolution is concerned, this difference is irrelevant, to say the least, inasmuch as, in either case there is a person who has lost his land.

¶53

c) The next contention of learned Sr. Panel Counsel that even going by the voice of JUNJAMMA VS. BDA , ILR 2005 KAR 608, right to have compensatory site is subject to site owner paying the full sital value, appears to be

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶56

sensible. When it was put to counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, he agrees with the same. However, the sital value has to be decided on normative basis.

¶57

d) The next contention that the assurance to allot

¶58

site in question was given by the official concerned who did not have full knowledge and authority to give the same, is difficult to agree with. No legal literature supportive of the said contention is demonstrated. Secondly, on being repeatedly asked, the Panel Counsel fairly answers that no action has been taken against the concerned official who had given such an undertaking. The Apex Court in MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO.

¶59

(P) LTD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1979 SC 621 held that the assurance given by the governmental agencies bind them, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Review Petitioner does not fit. It is a case of estoppel & promissory estoppel.

¶60

e) The contention that in respect of acquisition, the

¶61

BDA has deposited a sum of Rs.3,95,377/- way back on

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶63

25.07.2007 and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to lay a claim for compensatory site, is difficult to countenance inasmuch as the said site owner has not drawn any money or any part thereof. The said amount is said to be in deposit at the hands of Reference court. Writ Petitioner says that she is not at all interested in the money.

¶64

f) The last submission of learned Sr. Panel Counsel that if compensatory site has to be given, that will be in some other layout, has some merit. It is not that compensatory site should be given in the very same layout. In matters like this, a host of factors enter the decision making as to grant of compensatory sites wherewithal of that lies with the authorities; therefore, the concession sought for as to giving site in some other layout is conceded by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner. To that extent, the order put in Review Petition is modified.

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:31906 RP No. 215 of 2019

¶66

¶67

In the above circumstances, this Review Petition is

¶68

disposed off with the above observations. All other conditions of the order now put in review remain intact.

¶69

Costs made easy.

¶70

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶71

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

The Commissioner v. Smt. K. Pushpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Smt. K. Pushpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Boregowda @ Chandregowda Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Yathindra Siddaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Bangaru Srinivasan Vs Smt. S. M. Renukamma

Smt Anusuyamma Vs Sri Mudalagiriyappa

Sri. S M Manjunath Vs Sri. H G Venkatachalapathy

Mrs. M. Anbammal Vs Mr. M. Ashok Kumar @ Jayaram