Disposed

Narayanaswamy C v. M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/9983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking release of 20% balance compensation for acquired land. High Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representation within three months, suspending disbursement until rival claims are resolved, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directs SLAO to consider representation for release of 20% compensation within 3 months; disbursement suspended pending decision on rival claims.

Narayanaswamy C Vs M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9983 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARAYANASWAMY C.

¶9

S/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.118, OLD BYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560033.

¶10

SMT. TAYAMMA @ LAKSHMAMMA W/O H. RAMANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND OM SHAKTI TEMPLE, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 562114.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.119, JYOTHIPURA, MANDURU POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560049.

¶14

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O ERASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, KABBALAMMA NILAYA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶16

2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, ANNAIAPPA LAYOUT, OLD BYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560033.

¶17

SMT. PARVATHAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVI W/O C.T. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.91, WIND TUNNEL ROAD, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, CHALLAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560037.

¶18

SRI. C. SRINIVAS S/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVA PARVATHINILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND OM SHAKTI TEMPLE, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 562114.

¶19

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.1 - SRI.C. NARAYANASWAMY.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶25

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SLAO) VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, 3^RD FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶26

M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER #14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

M/S NEW GOVERNMENT ELECTRICAL FACTORY (NGEF) REPRESENTED BY SRI. NAGARAJA V., CEO & COMPANY SECRETARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.49, 3^RD FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING) RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. HARISH N.N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R2; SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 06.03.2023, R3 IS DELETED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶31

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - SLAO TO CONSIDER THE

¶32

REPRESENTATION FILED ON MARCH 31^ST , 2022 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R2 - SLAO TO EXPEDITE THE

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶34

RELEASE OF 20 PERCENT OF THE REMAINING COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶39

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent - authorities to consider the representation dated 31.03.2022 made by the petitioners, seeking release of 20% of the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land in question.

¶40

Sri. N.N. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Anuparna Bardoloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 contended that, 80% of the compensation has already been released in favour of petitioners and in view of the disputed question of fact relating to disbursement of the compensation is concerned, it is submitted

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶42

by learned counsel representing the respondents that, positive direction cannot be given in this Writ Petition.

¶43

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, since the matter is pending consideration before respondent No.2 in respect of the release of 20% of the compensation in respect of the subject land is concerned, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-A), within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

¶44

It is also open for the petitioners to make one more representation along with necessary documents to the respondent No.2 to enable respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter as stated above, and similarly the private respondent No.4 is also permitted to make such representation if so advised, to respondent No.2.

¶45

In so far as disbursal of the compensation amount is concerned, as rival claimant respondent No.4 is also seeking similar relief, SLAO shall take decision in the matter in accordance with law, at the earliest. However, till consideration

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:50381 WP No. 9983 of 2022

¶48

of the same, disbursement of compensation shall not be made to the petitioners or to respondent No.4.

¶49

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶50

of.

¶51

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶52

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Narayanaswamy C v. M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanaswamy C v. M/S Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

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

Kenchegowda Vs Smt Dr P Marutham

Munishamanna. B Vs the State of Karnataka

Subramani B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi P Vs the Commissioner

Sri Rajesh R Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Smt Shivamma S Vs the State of Karnataka