High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Appainna S/O Muniswamappa vs The Commissioner Bangalore City … on 6 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Appainna S/O Muniswamappa vs The Commissioner Bangalore City … on 6 August, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-3-

IN um HIGH Corsair 01-' KARNATAKA,  

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUC}{_JVS"f',~-::2(}:AQ:9v % ' L

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JusT1CE  ;fié§;i)Df{%%"~ V

WRIT PE'm'1oN No. i5($?26:_'%'GF §2(5'()€:'«_'(:i.3--E.§:i*.3dP)

BETWEEN

SRIAPPAINNA _  1   
S/OMUNISWAMAPPA     
AGED ABo_m"'-16     
R/T # 13, Nzvsms Roan}. 
PAN'rHAR_APA.1,Y'A~1.:,__ _ "  " 
BANG;:,L0RE4'5é:»0.'G39  

 '- V    ' ...PE'I'i'i'IONER

(By Sri : 1%: s_Rr;EV'RANAg:AI§A.JAN, ADV )

AND V 

      '¢bm.21ss10NER

_  .._'BA?*iC-1_\L()'RE CITY CORPORATION
'  BANGALORE

 2 SRIZMS NAGARAJ

;  THE ASSISTANT' EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
_ BANGALORE CITY CGRPORATIGN '
'  WARD 930.39, CORPORATION COMPLEX OFFICE
J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE

3 SR] NAGARAJ
JUNIOR ENGINEER
BAfiGALORE CITY CORPORATION
COMPLEX OFFIE i 5

   

E ' =._,;::'.



-2-

J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE

4 STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1
DEPARTMENT, M 8 BUILDING
BANGALORE. V 

(By Sr: ; 13 V MURALIDHAR, Atjvjfataf R1"*:'QTRé  )
(BY SR1. R DEVDAS, Ac;-A. FORR'~':-)   

THIS w.P. i«'ILED_A"P}?AF{§'NG"TC" . DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS To PAY  QGvMPEl'§SA'l'I.Q.N" VALUED AT

RS.8,10,00€)/–. fifms. i?E,”TIT’i’QN_E’Rfj–.I’S ~AgLSO SEEKING AT
tN’rEREs’r 13% )5.’-RON: ?.?”;6.20{}G’– ‘T-Il…L THE DATE OF

PAYMENT AND 1e:.’i%4i2/59~6O dt. 2.9.1959, put up construction of a

” Wbmlding measuring 45 x 85 ft on the southem side,

having vacant: land measurizng 15 x 100-‘. It is the

Mi

-3-

allegation of the petitioner that the respondenvtx-;ii”.3:Bi\(1P

without initiating acquisition proceedings __1;1″or’ _

compensation, laid a road in the vacant * we

premises measuring 8+ 10/ 2 1i)0é33

requests, the respondents”

compensation, have this i’ for a
direction to the respoieiciente fi)}’if?eiV”e§Si.8,1O,O0O/– with
interest at 18% VfI’OII:}”‘xd.¢’it€ of taking
possession

l by filing statement of

objeceonéet, ;.;4_;5_i2oeei interalia contending that the

the representation dt. 31.10.2007

under consideration and after verifying

the same would be folwarcied to the

‘~..GoveI’ii11V1_:ient for initiating action under Land Acquisition

acquire the said portion of the land. and payment

_of’ compensation under the Act to the riglitful ewner. In

V’ adciitiion, it is contended that the Compensation claimed

iik

..a’L.

is exorbitant and Without any basis. In adciition;’»ot;l1e

respondent in para 3 of the objections steftes’ _._:a.

portion of the petitioner’s property Was. for ‘

formation of road, however consent’ of

petitioner. According to’ -fiihe V’reSpond,ern_,

petitioner approached in
0.34371/2000, no szégss in the matter
of payment of c_.ompen®.t;ion;– “disposal of the
suit, it is not produced
relevant ‘the claim of title to the

pIopeIty,V”w’as,yei;.a;i:oil1:–_”.i* reason for not taking steps in

._ the»’:11atter oi’pa3r1nent of commnsation.

‘3. . :”Ifhef’C§ovemment pleader representing the State

by “-._it.s Secretary, when impleaded as party

: “re$pondent, submits that the Government would take

over the representation of the BBMI4’ to permit

_,_._acqi1iSitiof1 of the extent of land utilised. for the

formation of the road, if granted four weeks time.

M

-5-

4. Having heard the learned counsel

parties and perused the pieadings, admitted_I3:–«tfie *

of 8+-10/2 x 100 ft. was by A’

BBMP for the formation of road {at .’

fact: that, that extent of _oWi1e:i__ b3zVVATtheV”:§}eiitioner ‘

cannot be in doubt sinee “ie i1o_ othervvpereon who
has laid a eiaim to o§v::;=.rsni§fov§e;x~o%o piece of Land
before the ‘yetitioner has Iaid
before theg’BI:?1fsfl%” ‘to substantiate the
fact that holiier of the said prcqmrty,

ad mittedijz L poeeeseioxig’

. V. _ V. B'<V"3"At..h='-.4.t may: the fact that the portion of

for the road, was not preceded by

acq"uisi§:Eo;33 payment of compensation, it cannot but

VT the action in violation of the constitution

' upon the petitienefis right, and hence

' -deserves interference.

bk

-6-

6. There Ming no dispute over the exact

measurement of the land, belonging to the

utilised for the road, the petitioner l

entitled to compensation based

of the land on the date ile.

27.6.2000, under the provisiofisloifthell Lae1uf1ti’:AoVquisition
Act, 1894. The of notification and
passing an award cetteioiy enormous
time. In .tl;e fih” fik it appropriate to
direct to pay the petitioner

Rs. 1,00,0UQ]’ of four weeks from today

, ‘_ ____ jrzlmediately on the award after

eoqvuisifion proceedings on receipt of the

State Government, which in any event

shottid Vtnoty beyond six weeks tileiefiom.

‘* VT The writ petition is accordingly dtsposed of.

% Sd/~
k ‘ Judge

“13?