Disposed

K Narayan v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/34545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a BDA endorsement refusing NOC for 6 guntas of left-out land after acquisition of part of his holding in Sy.No.15, Ramasandra Village. The Court found disputed questions of fact on measurement and identification unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the competent court or authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

K Narayan Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34545 OF 2018 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. NARAYAN S/O LATE KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.7, NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, NEAR ISEC, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

¶19

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶22

ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.01.2018 REJECTING THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF NOC IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING LAND MEASURING 11.2 GUNTAS OUT OF 13¹ /2 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.15 AFTER DEDUCTING 10¹ /2 GUNTAS ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENTS BELONGED TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AS PER ANNEXURE - L2; AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-L2) rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for grant of NOC in respect of the 6 guntas of land in Sy. No.15 after deducting portion of land acquired by the respondent for public purpose.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question has been acquired by the respondent - BDA and in that connection, Award has been passed as per Annexure-E dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶29

10.02.2003. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though

¶30

the Award has been passed by the respondent - authorities, however, no Award has been made in so far as left out portion of land to the extent of 6 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner. In this regard, petitioner has produced certain sale deeds to envisage about sale of portion of the land in the land in question. This Court, vide order dated 28.10.2015 in W.P.No.37562/2015 (Annexure-J) at para 2 held as follows:

¶31

"2. It is needless to state that in the absence of identification of the extent of land belonging to the petitioner that was acquired under the final declaration, it is for the Bangalore Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain the exact measurements of land to determine the exact extent of land belonging to petitioner that was acquired and thereafterwards, consider the issue of No Objection Certificate as well as allotment of incentive site under the Bangalore Development Authority (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, in any event, by 15^th December, 2015. Petition is ordered in like terms."

¶32

Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent - BDA seeking NOC in respect of the remaining land

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶34

to an extent of 6 guntas and in furtherance of the same, the respondent has issued endorsement dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure-J2). It is also not in dispute that the respondent - BDA has accepted the contention of the petitioner in so far as recommending a site to the petitioner measuring 20 x 30 in favour of the petitioner in view of acquiring 10¹ /2 acres of land as an incentive measure.

¶35

Having taken note of the said aspect, it is contended by Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that even after payment of compensation made in respect of acquiring the land in question, the petitioner has the benefit of left out land to an extent of 6 guntas of land, however, the respondent - BDA, by referring to a map submitted that there is a lake and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶36

Per contra, Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA, sought to justify the action of respondent - BDA by referring to para 2 and 3 of the statement of objections and submitted that after conducting survey by the respondent - authorities, it was found that only 18 guntas of land belonging

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶38

to the petitioner and to that extent the relief has been given to the petitioner, however, in so far as 6 guntas of land as contended by the petitioner, cannot be accepted and no NOC could be issued in so far as the said land is concerned as the land itself is not available on the spot and therefore, acquisition of 24 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner does not arise.

¶39

In this connection, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 26.02.2020, wherein this Court directed the respondent - BDA to file an affidavit of a responsible officer after conducting survey and pursuant to the same the respondent - BDA has filed survey map and it is the contention of the BDA in their affidavit dated 28.07.2021 wherein at para 2 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶40

"2. I submit that the Sy.No.15 of Ramasandra Village total measures 10 Acres 19 guntas. The entire boundary of the Sy.No.15 is shown in Red colour. BDA has Notified 5-00 Acres of land out of said 10 Acres 19 guntas. Out of said notified 5-00 Acres of land, the area de-notified by the State Govt. is shown in the layout plan as "NA". The property acquired from the petitioner is situated adjacent to the said De-notified area and it has been shown in Green colour. After the said petitioner's property, Lake Boundary starts. The lake area has been shown in Blue

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶42

Colour. BDA has utilized the portion of the said Lake area for the formation of Road and the portion of the area has been utilized for the formation of sites as shown in the layout plan. Copy of the Relevant portion of the layout plan is produced at DOCUMENT NO.1."

¶43

Having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as it is not in dispute that respondent - BDA has utilised the portion of the lake for the purpose of formation of a layout and also the portion of the area has been utilised for formation of sites as shown in the layout plan (document No.1) enclosed to the affidavit, I am of the view that the controversy between the parties is with regard to identification of the property as well as measurement, as disputed by either of the parties. In that view of the matter, looking into the provision contained in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where it is stated that whenever there is dispute between the parties with regard to measurement of land, compensation amount, etc., reference may be made by the respondent - authorities, for determination of the Court, however, these disputed questions of fact cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, I do not find merit in the Writ Petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:45579 WP No. 34545 of 2018

¶46

Be that as it may. In view of the above discussion, as the endorsement dated 22.01.2018(Annexure-L2) has been issued by the respondent - BDA, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent court / authority for redressal of grievance with regard to establishing his claim in so far as 6 guntas of land is concerned.

¶47

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶48

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶49

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

K Narayan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K Narayan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mangamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Reddy Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yashoda Veeramayanna Vs Karnataka Industrial Area

The Magadi Taluk Agricultural Produce Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.M. Somanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri D K Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka