Allowed

G Channarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024WP/58415/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought compensation for 780 sq.ft of land allegedly used by BMRCL for Metro work without acquisition. BBMP's report confirmed the land belonged to the petitioners though used for road and drain. The Court allowed the petition and directed BMRCL to acquire the land and pay compensation in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

BMRCL directed to acquire 780 sq.ft and pay compensation to petitioners in accordance with law, expeditiously.

G Channarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23341 WP No. 58415 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 58415 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

G. CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE GUMMAIAH,

¶8

SRI. C. SANDEEP BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI. G. CHANNARAYAPPA,

¶9

AT NO. 122, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT, NO. 49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:23341 WP No. 58415 of 2015

¶19

BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BMRCL), THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 14/3, ARVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., B.M.T.C COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 02, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. S.J. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/DIRECTION/ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE A CORRIGENDUM OF THE FINAL DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 28[4] OF THE KIAD ACT, DATED 29.12.2014, WHICH IS GAZETTE ON 5.1.2015 AT ANNEX-G, TO ACQUIRE 780 SQ.FT OF LAND, WHICH IS ON THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE ACQUIRED LAND MEASURING 87.58 SQ.MTS/942 SQ.FT VIDE ANNEX-G IN PROPERTY BEARING PID NO.39-12-23 IN SY.NO.44/3 OF

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23341 WP No. 58415 of 2015

¶27

NAYANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that 780 Square Feet of their land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition has been utilized for the purposes of respondent No.4-Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (for short, 'the BMRCL') without acquisition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to grant the necessary compensation for the said portion of land.

¶31

The learned counsel for respondent No.4-BMRCL, upon instructions, submitted that the said property does not belong to the petitioners and contends that the said property belongs to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP') as there is a road and a drain found on the said property. Hence, this Court vide its order dated 23.03.2016, directed the petitioners to implead the BBMP and further directed the BBMP to file a report regarding the same.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:23341 WP No. 58415 of 2015

¶34

The BBMP has been impleaded as respondent No.5 in the instant writ petition. The BBMP has filed a report by way of a memo dated 15.04.2024 and the learned counsel for the BBMP, upon instructions, submits that the land concerned does not belong to the BBMP but belonged to the petitioner, but, for public purposes it was utilized and a road and drain was formed on the same. He further submits that the ownership of the property rests with the petitioner.

¶35

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed . Respondent No.4 is directed to take the necessary steps to acquire and pay the necessary compensation to the petitioners in respect of 780 Square Feet in accordance with law. The same shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. It is needles to state that if there is any title dispute with regard to the land concerned, the compensation will be deposited in the Reference Court.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

¶38

G Channarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Channarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sunanda B Vs Dodde Gowda B

Harshavardhan B J Vs S Bhuvaneshwari

Sri Meka Muruli Krishna Vs Al-Fatha House Building Co-Op. Society Ltd.

Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Khurshidunnissa Vs Union of India

R Chinnappa Vs State of Karnataka