Sri B P Rajeev Vs State of Karnataka

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., "SAMPARKA SOUDHA", SURVEY No.8 (BEP PREMISES) DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, IST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶21

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER WAYS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB-DIVISION, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BIDADI TOWN, BIDADI -562 109. REP. BY ITS CEO.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6; SRI. V.B. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; SRI. HARISH H.V. ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND PAY THE COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR HAVING ALREADY MADE USE OF BY THEM IN FORMATION OF THE ROAD AND DRAINAGE AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioner claiming to be the owner of property bearing No.359/633/646/A and 633/646/B measuring 62.6x60 ft, situated at Bidadi Main Road, he having acquired the same in terms of deed of Release dated 03.12.2011 is before this Court contending that he has put up a building consisting of shops measuring North to South 22.6 ft and East to West 60 ft which is currently abutting Bangalore Mysore Highway passing through Bidadi and that the respondent authorities have utilised the front portion of the aforesaid property facing the National Highway and have laid road and footpath thereon without initiating the process of acquisition and consequently seeking following relief:

¶32

"Issue writ of mandamus to the Respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay the compensation and damages to the property in question for having already made use of by them in formation of the Road and Drainage".

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition at the outset submits that though portion of the land belonging to the petitioner has been utilized as above, despite repeated requests to the respondent

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶36

authorities, he has not been given any specific information as to which of the authorities/respondents have actually used/utilized the property belonging to the petitioner. He further submits the property belonging to one M.Siddappa, S/o Maranna which is situated on the western side of the property of petitioner was also utilised for the aforesaid purpose and that the said M.Siddappa has been granted compensation as found at Annexures J and K to the writ petition. Thus, he submits when the authorities could grant compensation to the immediate neighbour of the petitioner for having utilized his portion of the land which is similarly and identically situated as that of the land of petitioner respondent authorities could not have denied the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation.

¶37

Learned AGA referring to spot mahazar and sketch which is produced along with memo dated 20.08.2023 submits that the spot survey mahazar was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court in that it is found petitioner being in possession of land over which the building is existing which measures North to South 32 1/2 ft and East to West 60 ft and that a portion of portico is measuring 7 1/4 feet. Thus she

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶40

vehemently submits that the claim of the petitioner being owner of property measuring North to South 60 ft East to West 62 1/2 feet is untenable. She also submits that western boundary of the property does not refer to any person by name M.Siddappa as claimed by the petitioner. She refers to the contents of spot mahazar which is apparently prepared by the Chief Officer, Municipal Corporation Bidadi, Assistant Engineer of National Highway Division, Executive Engineer of Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited, Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar and Special Land Acquisition Officer and submits that land bearing Sy.No.633/646/A and 633/646/B has not been acquired for any purpose, however she fairly submits that the case of the petitioner will be reconsidered and if it is found that any portion of his land is utilized as alleged appropriate orders would be passed as contemplated under law for payment of compensation.

¶41

Heard and perused the records.

¶42

The vehement contention of the petitioner is that when the respondent authorities have apparently acquired the land bearing Khaneshumari No.645 belonging to Sri.Siddappa

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶45

S/o Maranna, to an extent of 735 sq. ft. which is situated immediately adjacent to the property of the petitioner and have paid the compensation thereof, no reason of any nature is assigned for non consideration of the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation in respect of his portion of the land utilised for formation of road and footpath.

¶46

In any case even according to the mahazar report and the sketch produced by the respondent-State indicates that on spot verification it was found that the plot is measuring East to West 60 feet and the building is measuring East to West 49 feet and North to South 32 1/2 feet with front portion measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 7 1/4 being portico and front portion of portico East to West 60 ft and North to South 7 3/4 feet being drain and beyond the said drain area measuring East to West 60 feet North to South 7 1/2 feet is used for formation of footpath and thereafter in an area measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 5 feet there exists a road. These measurements are required to be ascertained with reference to the measurements shown in the title deeds of the petitioner. Thus there appears to be an issue requiring ascertainment of the actual extent of the

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶49

land/property claimed by the petitioner with reference to his title deeds and the mahazar and sketch prepared by the authorities of the respondent-State.

¶50

One another contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that none of the respondent authorities are giving any clarity as to who has acquired/utilized the portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of formation of road and footpath as noted above.

¶51

In view of the above fact situation of the matter and in the fitness of things this Court is of the considered view that it is necessary to relegate the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, respondent No.2 herein, with the following directions:

¶52

(i) Petitioner to make a representation along with necessary documents putting forth his case regarding respondent authorities utilizing his property for formation of service road and footpath as claimed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶55

(ii) Deputy Commissioner shall ascertain if Sri.Siddappa the owner of property bearing Khaneshumari No.645, which is stated to be situated adjacent to the property of the petitioner has been paid compensation as per Annexures-J and K of the writ petition and if so, shall also ascertain if the property belonging to the petitioner has been acquired or not.

¶56

(iii) Deputy Commissioner shall also ascertain as to which of the authorities have acquired the property of the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has not been

¶57

given specific answer by the authorities who have utilized the property for formation/extension of service road and footpath.

¶58

(iv) If it is found that the property of the petitioner has indeed been utilized for the purpose of formation of service road/footpath as above, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders determining the compensation either himself or

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3255 WP No. 49942 of 2018

¶60

through competent officer of the concerned

¶61

department.

¶62

(v) The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and order in this regard be passed containing the details as stated above within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶63

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶64

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

¶65

SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri B P Rajeev v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B P Rajeev v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. v. Mala Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Eranna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jyoti Vs Chairman

Far East Broadcasting Association of India Vs the State of Karnataka

E H Lakshman Vs the State of Karnataka