ORDER
1. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person aged about 72 years old. The petitioner was the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 506 out of R.S. Survey No. 831/2 in the heart of Belgaum City. The property consisted of a residential house and a structure wherein the petitioner was carrying on the business of firewood and coal. The total measurement of the property was 735.79 square yards. The petitioner was in possession of the property since 1955.
2. This being the case, it is submitted that the officials of the 1st respondent came to the premises on 8-4-1994 with about 100 employees and bulldozers and started demolishing the building by taking the law in their hands. Since it was the weekend followed by Ugadi festival, the petitioner could not approach the Court. Taking advantage of the difficulty in which the petitioner was placed, the respondents offered an alternative site to the petitioner bearing CST 220 measuring about 2,000 square feet. It is not disputed that what was sought to be taken over by the respondents was about 4,000 square feet and what was given in exchange was only 2,000 square feet.
3. The conduct of the first respondent in taking the law into his hands was reprehensible.
4. In its counter filed by the 1st respondent the 1st respondent does not deny taking possession. The objections filed by the 1st respondent at paragraphs 2 and 3 reads as follows:–
“It is true that the Corporation has resolved to widen the Congress road and the Corporation requested the residents of the said locality to co-operate in road widening and hand over vacant possession of their property. Accordingly, the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered his premises to the Corporation for the successful implementation of the master plan in view of the alternate accommodation provided by the Corporation. Hence, the procedure as stated in para 4 is not required to be followed.
The averments made in para 5 of the writ petition to the effect that the officials of the Corporation had gone to the premises bearing Plot No. 506 on 8-4-1994 with 100 employees and bulldozers and started demolishing the building belonging to the petitioner by using force and that the petitioner was not even in a position to remove his belonging from his residential premises and that the Corporation has started demolishing the structure in the night, etc., are all false and misleading. As the petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered the premises, the Corporation has demolished the building”.
The learned Counsel for the respondent 1 wants to justify the conduct of the respondents by stating that the petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered the premises and the Corporation demolished the building at the request of the petitioner. It is very difficult to believe such a tall story.
5. In fact Sections 267 and 270 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 states that reasonable compensation shall be paid to the owners and occupiers of any land or building acquired for the purpose of widening the road or improving any public street. Section 270 deals with acquisition of land and buildings for improvement of streets.
6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no prior sanction was obtained by the Corporation for exercising powers under Section 267. It is not denied by the 1st respondent that the land was not acquired but the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent relies on the power under Section 267 and feebly submits that a land in exchange was given to the petitioner which the petitioner voluntarily accepted. It appears from the lease deed given in favour of the petitioner that the said lease deed was given two days after the demolition. The demolition took place on 8-4-1994 and the lease deed was given on 10-4-1994 – Sunday. It cannot be forgotten that the property that was allegedly surrendered had a dwelling unit and the total extent was 735.79 square yards. The property that was given in return was a vacant site measuring 2,000 square feet on lease for a period of five years. All this clearly throws considerable doubt as to whether the petitioner handed over his building voluntarily.
7. The action of the 1st respondent was clearly highhanded. The petitioner is an old handicapped person, who deserved a better deal from the 1st respondent.
8. It would have been open for the petitioner to challenge the 1st respondent’s action in taking over the land. However, the petitioner’s Counsel submits that he will confine himself only to adequate compensation and execution of the sale deed in his favour with regard to the alternative site given to him. This is a fair and reasonable offer.
9. Accordingly, there will be a mandamus directing the respondents to convert the lease deed into a sale deed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. I also impose a sum of Rs. 25,000/-as compensation to the petitioner. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order. This will be in full and final settlement of any claim that the petitioner may have against the 1st respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.