Shri. Rajagopal Vs the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 4^TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO) 1^ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN NURPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶14

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REG OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶18

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. BMRCL/LAND/R5-HD-56/2024/17303 DATED 01/02/2024 PASSED BY THE R3 (ANNEXURE-K) IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO. 23257/2021 AND WP NO. 11871/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE- A AND L AND ALSO CONTRARY TO KIADB ACT 1966 REGARDING GRANT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶24

'' a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing the order bearing No. BMRCL/Land/R5-HD-56/2024/17303 dated 01.02.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-K) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.23257/2021 andW.P.No.11871/2020 as per Annexure A & L and also contrary to KIADB Act 1966 regarding grant of compensation.

¶25

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the compensation towards the property measuring 565.07 sq.mts to the land and building acquired by the respondents in Sy.No.69 of Hebgodi village, Bengaluru now comes within the jurisdiction Hebgodi City Municipal Council consequent upon quashing the order at Annexure-K.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶28

(c) Direct the contenting respondents to pay the costs of these proceedings and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.''

¶29

Brief facts of the case is that, petitioner and his family

¶30

were in possession of the property measuring 0.05¾ guntas forming part of land in Sy.No.69, Hebbagodi Village, Anekal Taluk, which was granted in favour his father Channappa on 06.08.1965 and the said property was partitioned amongst the petitioner and his family members. In terms of said partition, the petitioner was allotted an extent of 147 Ft.X125 Ft. totally measuring 18,375 Sq. Ft. The Khata in respect of the said property has been effected in the name of the petitioner upon the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court on earlier occasion in W.P.No.23257/2021. That the said land in Sy.No.69 was acquired by the respondent-KIADB and name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the notification showing to be in possession of 565.07 Sq. Meters. That the General Award has been passed on 24.12.2019 by the respondent No.2 and the amount has been deposited by the respondent No.2 before the Civil Court. A sum of Rs.6,86,000/- has been released in

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶33

the name of the petitioner. However, the compensation in respect of the land has not been paid.

¶34

Petitioner made representation on 19.12.2023 seeking payment of compensation. However, a Communication came to be issued by the respondent No.3-BMRCL on 01.02.2024 as per Annexure-K. In terms of which, the respondent No.3BMRCL have refused to pay the compensation on the premise of petitioner not producing the title deeds, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this petition.

¶35

Sri. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records, more particularly the documents produced at Annexure-B a copy of Demand Register Extract, wherein extent of land is shown as 147Ft.X125Ft., and referring to the same, he submits that the name of the petitioner was mutated based on the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.23257/2021. He submits that the said khata was made in the name of the father of the petitioner based on the grant and petitioner has produced the said documents before the respondent No3.-BMRCL seeking compensation, which has been declined.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶38

Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB submits that the documents which are being relied upon by the petitioner have come into existence subsequent to issuance of the notification. That apart revenue records do not establish the title and on basis of the said revenue records, the respondent Nos.1 and 2-KIADB cannot be found fault with for not granting the compensation.

¶39

Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the other hand taking this Court through the contents of the Communication at Annexure-K dated 01.02.2024, submits that even according to the petitioner only an extent of 0.05¾ guntas was granted in the name of petitioner's father which was partitioned as per partition deed dated 15.01.2002 amongst the petitioner, his mother, his sister and his younger brother each having been allotted approximately 1.1 guntas of land, which is equivalent to about 1,200 Sq.Ft and the petitioner was allotted 1.75 guntas which equivalent to about 2,000 Sq.Ft. Admittedly, the petitioner himself has sold an extent of 1,200 Sq. Ft. out of the said allotment in favour of one Sri. Lakshman T. Kolli in terms of registered deed of sale dated 23.03.2001 for a consideration of Rs.48,000/-. Thus

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶42

after the sale of said property what remained was only 800 Sq. Ft. if any. He further submits that even the mother of the petitioner to whom an extent of 1.1 guntas of land was allotted stated to have sold her portion of land. Thus he submits that claim by the petitioner to an extent of 565.07 Sq.Mtrs is untenable and without any basis. However, both learned counsel for the respondent-KIADB and BMRCL fairly submits that if in the event the petitioner producing title deeds and revenue records justifying his entitlement, claim of the petitioner would be consider in accordance with law.

¶43

Heard and perused the records.

¶44

8. The petitioner claims that his father Channappa was

¶45

granted 5.75 guntas of land forming part of land in Sy.No.69, Hebbegoudi Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, which is admittedly partitioned amongst the mother, brother and sister of the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted 2,000 Sq. Ft. of land, out of which he has already sold 1,200 Sq.Ft. That being the case the registration of khata in respect of 147 Ft.X125 Ft. of land purportedly belonging to the petitioner requires

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:4220 WP No. 11667 of 2024

¶48

justification with supporting documents, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶49

Without going into the merits of the claim or otherwise of the matter, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to furnish/submit title deeds along with revenue records in justification of his claim to the land which is acquired by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of metro.

¶50

Petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with the documents as noted hereinabove, if so advised, to the respondent No.3-BMRCL within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent No.3-BMRCL shall thereafter consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, if any, within three months from the date of presentation of the representation.

¶51

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

RL

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shri. Rajagopal v. the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rajagopal v. the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chinnamma Vs Smt. Gowramma

Sri N Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Narasamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Rudramma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs the State of Karnataka