IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23R» DAY OF N0VEMBER.vV2€:):I1()
BEFORE:
"rm: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I).V. "
Writ Petition No.15 764 2tj{)9«. [ILA-£3DAf ' _
.Q£.L.v.:
Writ Petition No.22'?4é~of2o09;LAA«I.éDA}_
BETWEEN:
NENA LAL (in M I
s/0 SR1 MADIRAMJEE
AGED ABOUT 54 was . --. '
RESIDING
MAGADI MAIN re'-OA1:) .
BANGALORE'*~ 560023
REP.
B'z"G'PA A._1~;1:.F CONST1.TU'fION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
L gs: RSTO _C"O.NDUCT JOINT SURVEY OP THE LAND SITUATED IN
'NOv.jBz/'7%' 'TSREGANDADA KAVAL VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPUR
HOBLI, BAITS-,AI;ORE NORTH TO, BY THE SURVEYORS BELONGING
TOTHER2a:'R3ANDE'rC...
A THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
_ C 'HEA.R:NG 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
" EOLLOWING:--
_. ~ \' ._ RESPQI'~IDEN'£'Sb
O R B E B.
These two Writ petitions by the same person is in the
context of as many as three notifications that had been
issued at different points of time, narnelyzw_notifie.atior1
dated 23.2.1989 issued by the DeputyWeuirnniéséoaeié;
Bangalore,' for the purpose of it 7.
in Sy. No.57/7, Srigandhadakavai--- Ah'?/"'i!1age,Vdfeshiyaijitiripdurp
Hobii, Bangalore North Taluihza'secoridnotificlation dated
17.6.2005 by the theivpurpose of
acquiring the said 1and..to_'-eridaloilpe of a ring road
and the Government and yet
11.4.2009 issued under section
17[1j. gf Bangalore'bevelopment Authority Act, 1976
theiitiangalorevvbeyeloprnent Authority, for the purpose
i"~of'~form-at-i.or1-router ring road and the petitioner claiming
ovviiership. all to an extent of 33 guntas of this survey
' nurr1be1* in terms of a sale deed said to have been executed
/by-Channa Narasimaiah on 19.8.1980. $// _
4
2. The contention of the petitioner is that his
ownership of an extent of 3 guntas of land in said
survey number has been unauthorizedly encroaefhed Iupon
by the officials of the Bruhat Bangal.oreA4_:'fMahanagafad
Palike for the purpose of deVelo:p4ing-..a.lto ''
process sewerage flowing' l
Bangalore city, but have the
petitioner for utilizatiorrof land, but more
importantly ha'v'--eV_h Corrie' writ petition
No.15"/64 of of 12 guntas of
land for a good measure
has sought the Bangalore Development
Authorityh-.to » aliotil._a1t.e.rnative land in favour of the
petitioner of an "ext.ent of 75% of the land in the ownership
of the-.g'pe'titioner which has been acquired by the
S2.ngaloreV'VdI)e{/elopment Authority.
Notices had been issued to the respondents.
A “id-‘.1.,:d””‘:_«’I’he second respondent in WP No.22748 of 2009 »-~
Emhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is represented by
5
Sri Muralidhar, learned counsel, and has filed its
statement of objections.
5. Similar is the stand taken by the
Mahanagara Palike in WP No. l5764–.of
petitioner has contended that
his ownership has also rnisusedl éruhat
Bangalore Mahanaga.rfa..y_ Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike in such misuse,
but asserting”:’that was in the
ownershgpilgf and had been handed
over Palike by the
officials” etca: l Bangalore Mahanagara
Paliljie has eneroached on any part of the land in the
any belonging to the petitioner.
didV\fhile’j__V..e:snbmission of Sri Guruprasad, learned
l’V.,peounselifor the third respondent ~– Bangalore Developrneigt
“:l:V’_Ant.h_ority in WP No.15764 of 2009 is that the authority
hfiad compensated the petitioner in a sum of ? 22,17,294/–
towards the industrial shed and has remained blissfully
6
silent about other prayer sought for by the petitioner,
namely, for providing an alternative site to the petitioner
in lieu of his land acquired for the purpose____ of the
Bangalore Development Authority.
7. Likewise in WP NO22748 or2oo9_,.
counsel for the third respondent; :4′
Authority, while submits th’at_V.she”*i,_sdnot
regard to the possibility of anaiternative site to
the petitioner, subxnviggifiotl relief regarding
direction to conduct a,~joi1it”psurv’ey etc, “is concerned, such
relief before the civil court and
not before fins’
8. Iihave heard__..Sri Karan Boraiah, learned counsel for
Vthe”pe’t.itiori»er–and other counsel who have appeared for
the llresponiéielnts.
9. Karan Boraiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submit that while the petitioner is not provided
_y_Cfompensation in respect of the land portion, but has only
been compensated with building area in 10 guntas of land
7
acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority in the
year 2005 and therefore writ of mandamus should be
issued to the authority to compensate the petitioner for
the value of the land, insofar as silence of the aujtiiofritygpfor
granting an alternative site is concerned, subi’nits:’that”_the. 4_
authority itself had passed a resolution in j
in its meeting held on
authority being aware of guntas
belonging to the grant an
alternative land to permission of
the court to plaege”‘beibre the”eour*t» to be copy of the
resolution .’ ‘
10. Sri iiieiarned counsel appearing for the
authority points. that it is not a resolution, but a note
Assistant Executive Engineer of the
is neither a resolution nor binding on the
authoritylébut some note put up by some lower level
A does not have much significance to bind the
authority etc..
V” proyisior1s_;
8
ll. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, while a writ of mandamus is not sought for, for
compensating the petitioner on the premise that no award
is passed etc., if the award is passed in fa\rour”‘p:«of*,,’the
petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to execute
and realize the amount in acCo1’da11c.e’ 1′.
court cannot be made use of
as executing court to implenientypthehxawardsif
12. Insofar as the prayer “‘or,V_i*eguest .. for allotment of
alternative site is concerned, 3W1=itvviofimandarnus cannot
be issued for-the simple reason that the
petitionler hasno’ to seek for such allotment of
alternative site in the absence of any enabling statutory
13L___ for argument sake, the authority has
passed-..’a iesolution to this effect. this court will not issue
a wifit of. mandamus to compel the authority to implement
the resolutions as the resolutions may be passed by
9
the authority for whatever purpose and reasons, but it
does not have a statutory effect.
14. In any View of the matter, none of prayers sought for
in the two writ petitions can be granted by thi-sj.enor
petitioner is entitled for seeking such
touchstone of any statutory or constitutiona.l it if
15. It is therefore, while
dismissed, petitioner is out his
other rights and remedies aac’cor’dance with
law.
16. in which the officials of the
Bangalore,__4I)eye1oprnent_.’e~ Authority appear to have paid
compensation’ ‘in_a____s1_.1rn of ? 22,17,294/– in favour of the
‘pVetition_ere infterms of the award appears to be a suspect
payment «for reason that industry or shed said to have
been yfaloufed at this amount is one on the bank of
A “:tf”‘frushabhavati river and there cannot be any private
ownership of lands in the vicinity of a river and if at all the
river and the surrounding land will be in the ownership of
%/it
10
the State Government and not in any private ownership.
The figuring of the petitioner’s name in the ‘lrevenule
records is the only basis for either
Commissioner or the land acquisition
the Bangalore Development l’
favour of the petitioner anld~__there-
collusive developments for petitioner
and even to allot in favour of the
Detitioner in to have been
acquired the basis of the
entriesin. or not, the lands
origina1,ly” petitioner, but Claiming
ownershipgnder stale” of the year 1980 and even as
__to the “vendor himself had such title to the land
are all”triatters–.which are suspicious and requires further
and for such purpose, the matter is referred
l<._to the {larnataka Lokayukta with a direction to investigate
l'_'into'"this matter and to recommend suitable action to the
V' . l A " State Government.
11
17. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to
make available copy of this order along with 0ther’r’re1evant
papers to the Karnataka Lokayukta for proce;edihg..fe{1ttl1er
in the matter at its end.
AN/–