Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gangamarappa vs Banglaore Development Authority on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44619
WP No. 221 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2017 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANGAMARAPPA,
S/O. MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT 860, 6TH CROSS,
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADANAGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA 2. THE SECRETARY,
Location: High BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Court of Karnataka
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44619
WP No. 221 of 2017
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 &
2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.9.2014 MADE
BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-B TO THE W.P. AND TO
ALLOT THE ALTERNATE LAND/SITE IN LIEU OF UTILIZATION OF
HIS LAND AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of
mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to consider the
representation dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure-B), so also seeking
allotment of alternative land/site, in lieu of utilization of his land
by the respondent-BDA.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner
claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.107/1A1
measuring 05 guntas situated at Mallathahalli Village, Bangalore
North Taluk, having purchased the same as per registered sale
deed dated 04.09.1997 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that the
respondent-BDA, has utilized 2495 sq.ft of land in
Sy.No.107/1A1 of Mallathahalli Village without following the
NC: 2024:KHC:44619
acquisition procedure and acquired the same for the purpose of
formation of link road from Jnanabharathi Layout to
Sir.M.Visweshwaraiah Layout. Therefore, it is the contention of
the petitioner that under a similar situation, this Court, in
WP.No.45695/2011 disposed of on 26.07.2012 (Annexure-G),
laid down certain directions, wherein the claim made by the
parties, seeking redressal of the grievance for having utilised his
land by the respondent-BDA, without following the acquisition
procedure.
3. In that view of the matter, taking note of the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, as the land belonging to the petitioner is acquired or
not has to be made through a joint-survey to be conducted in
the matter, so also the writ petitioner has to establish the title
in respect of the land in question. In this regard, this Court in
WP.No.11276/2014 and connected petitions disposed of on
26.08.2022 at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 held as follows:
"8. Having taken note of the fact that the grievance
of the petitioners have to be considered in the light
of the judgment rendered in the case of
ARUNACHALAM's (supra), the next question to be
answered in these writ petitions is in respect of
dispute raised by the respondent-BDA with regard to
title of the petitioners. In this regard, it is well
NC: 2024:KHC:44619
settled principle in law that the respondent-BDA is
bound to grant compensation to the petitioners or
their legal representatives or nominees, only after
such petitioners establishing their right over the
schedule properties mentioned in the writ petitions.
It is also made clear that unless the petitioners
establish their right over the petition schedule
property, such petitioners are not entitled for the
relief granted by this Court in the case of
ARUNACHALAM (supra). In the course of arguments,
learned Senior Counsel representing respondent-
BDA disputed the title relating to the respective
petition schedule properties and accordingly, in such
cases wherever title is disputed by the respondent-
BDA, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to
approach the respondent-BDA by making necessary
representation along with the relevant documents to
establish their right having regard to the factual
aspects of the case and after considering the
material on record, as the writ petitions are squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of
ARUNACHALAM (supra), the respondent-BDA shall
complete the entire exercise within six months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and
convey the outcome of the same to the writ
petitioners.
9. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have
stated that the land belonging to the petitioners
have been utilised, however, same has been denied
by the respondent- BDA that they have not utilised
such lands as contended by the counsel for the
petitioners. In such cases, the respondent-BDA shall
consider the grievance of such petitioners and if it
arrives at a conclusion that the land belonging to the
petitioners has been utilized for the purpose of
formation of road, such petitioners are entitled for
the benefit granted by this Court in case of
ARUNACHALAM (supra). Needless to say that liberty
is reserved to such writ petitioners also to establish
their right and to approach the respondent-BDA with
regard to clarification regarding utilization of their
lands. Subject to these observations, petitions are
disposed of."
NC: 2024:KHC:44619
4. Following the observation made by this Court in the
above writ petitions, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of
the same and the respondent-BDA, shall consider the grievance
of the petitioner and if it arrives at the conclusion that, the land
belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of
the formation of road and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit granted by this Court in the case of
DR.R.ARUNACHALAM Vs. BDA and another in
WP.No.45695/2011 decided on 26.07.2012.
5. Needless to state that liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to establish his right over the subject matter of the
land and to approach the respondent-BDA with regard to
clarification regarding utilization of such land as stated in the
writ petition.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
PK
CT: BHK
