Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs The Commissioner on 7 December, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
WP No. 11989 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11989 OF 2021 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE N. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 560 060.
2. SMT. TULASAMMA,
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 125/A,
PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
BANGALORE 560 059.
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT LINGEGOWDANA DODDI,
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI MADABAL POST, MAGADI TALUK,
PARLATTAYA S RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
Location: High Court
of Karnataka REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER,
SRI A. HANUMANTHARAJU,
S/O LATE N. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.95, SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE 560 060.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
WP No. 11989 of 2021
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 057.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE PETITIONERS
TO CONSIDER THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS
DATED 09.11.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:
"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus' directing to
consider representation of the petitioners dated
09.11.2018 as per Annexure-F, etc."
2. Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners' father one Galimaraiah was owner of
land measuring 04 acres 03 guntas in Sy.no.101/6 of
Ramasandra village, Bengaluru South Taluk having purchased
same under registered sale deed dated 28.09.1992. It was
submitted that after death of Galimaraiah, petitioners and their
brothers succeeded to his estate. Said land was acquired by
respondent for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
under Preliminary notification dated 22.05.2008 and Final
notification dated 18.02.2010. It was submitted that acquisition
had proceeded by showing name of petitioners' father as
khatedar. It was submitted that though petitioners being
daughters, were also entitled for share in property under
acquisition, respondent BDA proceeded to pass consent award
on consent given by petitioners' bothers only. It was submitted
that petitioners had filed O.S.no.878/2011 against their
brothers seeking for partition, which was decreed on
24.08.2017 granting 1/7th share to each of petitioners. It was
further submitted that reference was also filed in LAC
no.21/2017 for apportionment of compensation, which was
allowed in part in terms of judgment and decree in civil suit. On
ground that petitioners were entitled for benefit under 60:40
ratio scheme, ratio as per notification issued by government,
they submitted representation on 09.11.2018 as per Annexure-
F. Alleging that same had remained without consideration,
petitioners filed this writ petition.
3. On other hand, Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, learned
counsel for BDA sought to oppose writ petition. It was
submitted that acquisition had proceeded in name of khatedar.
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
It was submitted that suit was filed by petitioners herein, after
issuance of Final notification and decree passed was after
passing of award. In terms of award, respondent - BDA had
deposited compensation before Reference Court and since
petitioners were also party to reference application, they were
not entitled for any other benefit apart from compensation
deposited therein. On above ground sought for dismissal of writ
petition.
4. In reply, learned counsel for petitioners submitted
that this Court in W.P.no.16919/2013 in Yallappa Vs. The
State of Karnataka & Ors., disposed of on 28.06.2013 in
similar circumstances held as under:
"6. However, the operative portion of the
order shows only the name of Nanjappa.
Without considering the request of the
petitioner for the payment of the cash-
compensation and not the alternative land,
the award is passed. No party can be
compelled to take the grant of land in lieu
of the cash-compensation. Whether to opt
for cash-compensation or land-grant is a
decision which is to be left to the concerned
land-owner."
5. It is submitted that said order passed in above writ
petition referred to by this Court in W.P.no.7458/2021 in
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
Sri Narayanappa Vs. The Commissioner & Anr., disposed
of on 12.04.2021 and sought for direction in light of above
decision.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
7. From above submission petitioners grievance in
present writ petition is non-consideration of their representation at
Annexure-F dated 09.11.2018, wherein petitioners have sought
for allotment of alternative land in lieu of cash-compensation.
Said claim is made on basis of reference to incentive scheme
referred to in award. Since petitioners are held to be entitled
for share in property under acquisition, in decree passed by
Civil Court, petitioners would be entitled for compensation. In
view of decision of this Court in Yellappa (supra), it would be
at option of petitioners to seek for compensation either in cash
or in alternative grant site in case such scheme is available.
Therefore petitioners would have right for consideration of their
representation at Annexure-F by respondents - BDA, since
petitioners have made out claim and said claim is pending.
Therefore, all ingredients for issuing writ of mandamus would
be satisfied.
NC: 2023:KHC:44544
Consequently, writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty
to petitioners to submit further documents or judgments in
support of their representation at Annexure - F within a period
of two weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Thereafter respondent - BDA shall consider same in accordance
with law and referring to ratio laid down in judgment relied
upon within outer limit of three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
