Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH
DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.21202-21205 OF 2011 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Rathnamma,
Wife of Late K. Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 83 years,
Residing at No.24,
“Umasutha” Nilaya,
Vidyanagar, T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore – 560 057.
2. Sri. K.V. Srinath,
Son of Late K. Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.31, III Cross,
Vidyanagar,
T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore – 560057.
3. Sri. K.V. Venkatagiri,
Son of Late K. Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at II Cross,
III Floor, Sri. Venkateshwara Apartments,
Vidyanagar, T. Dasarahalli,
2
Bangalore – 560 057.
4. Sri. U.S.Kukkilaya,
Son of U. Venkata Kukkilaya,
Aged about 75 years,
Residing at No.85,
“Girija Nilaya”,
Vidyanagar,
T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore – 560 057.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its
Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority,
K.R.Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acqusition Officer,
National Highways Division,
K.R.Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001.
4. The Executive Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board,
3
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board, 3/2, Thimmaiah Complex,
3rd
Floor, 3rd
Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore – 560 009.
6. The Bangalore Metro Rail
Corporation Limited,
Having its office at:
BMTC Complex,
3rd
Floor, K.H.Road,
Shanthi Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 027,
Represented by its
Executive Director.
… RESPONDENTS.
(By Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri. P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and
5
Shri. M.N. Harish, Advocate for Respondent No.6)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to hold and declare that the
acquisition proceedings initiated by second respondent and
third respondent vide preliminary notification under Section
4(1) of L.A.Act, dated 7.1.1987 found at Annexure-E in case
No.LOA2SR10/87-88 and the final declaration under Section 6
of the LA Act dated 29.9.1988 found at Annexure-F, relating to
4
the land bearing Sy.No.13/3A2, situated at T. Dasarahalli,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, has
lapsed and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
respondents.
2. The petitioners claim that one K. Vasudeva Rao is said
to have died on 12.06.2007, leaving behind the petitioners who
are his widow and children. During his lifetime, K. Vasudeva
Rao is said to have purchased a house property at T.
Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore, under two different registered sale deeds dated
9.3.1953 and 30.11.1953 from one Muniswamappa, S/o.
Bajjappa. The properties were contiguous to each other
forming part of land bearing Sy.No.13/3 situated at T.
Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
5
The sale deed dated 9.3.1953 was found to contain a mistake.
In that, the property number was not precisely mentioned and it
was indicated by a Khaneshumari number and therefore, there
was a Rectification Deed executed dated 2.7.1956 to indicate
the property number as well. It is stated that in the property
purchased under the sale deed dated 9.3.1953, a portion of the
property bearing Sy.No.13/3 measured East to West 36’ and
North to South 21’, whereas, under the sale deed dated
30.11.1953, there were two portions of land bearing Sy.No.13/3
measuring East to West 36 ft. and North to South 12 ½ ft., and
another bit measuring East to West 33 ft. and North to South
112 ft. The entire extent of land described is delineated in a
rough sketch produced along with the petition.
It is claimed that the properties purchased by Vasudeva
Rao had a road width of 69 ft on the Southern side of the
property, which is the present National Highway, and an area
measuring East to West 6 ft. and North to South 33½ ft., had
been voluntarily given up for the formation of a cross road,
6
which is also indicated in the sketch by letters ‘NKLM’ and
therefore, the property held by Vasudeva Rao stood reduced to
63 ft from 69 ft. East to West on the Southern side. Subsequent
to the purchase, there was a survey settlement and the
properties were assigned new survey number as Sy.No.13/3A2.
A copy of the Hissa Survey Tippani is produced as
Annexure-“C” to the petition. It is further stated that Vasudeva
Rao, during his lifetime, has executed three Gift Deeds in
favour of Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively, conveying
different portions of the property held by him. The portion
which was gifted in favour of Petitioner No.2 is shown as Item
No.II and marked by the letters ‘QHIP’ in the sketch annexed to
the petition and the portion which is gifted in favour of
Petitioner No.3 is shown as Item Nos.III and IV, marked by
letters ‘PIJO’ and ‘UJKS’. The portion which was gifted in
favour of Petitioner No.4 is shown as Item No.V, which is
marked by the letters ‘OUSN’ in the sketch.
7
After executing these Gift Deeds, he still retained a
portion of the property in Sy.No.13/3A2, which is marked by
the letters ‘AEFQ’ in the sketch. After the death of Vasudeva
Rao, Petitioner No.1, his widow, was managing the family
affairs. It is claimed that National Highway No.4 is on the
Southern side of the property. In the year 1987, the National
Highways Authority, in order to widen the Highway, had
notified 1 gunta of land bearing Sy.No.13/3A2 for acquisition.
The notification dated 7.11.1987 is annexed. The land bearing
Sy.No.13/3A2 was the property of Vasudeva Rao, as he had
purchased the same under sale deeds, aforesaid. However, in
the notification issued by Respondents 2 and 3, the name of one
Byrappa was shown as the kathedar and anubavdar and a final
notification was issued on 29.09.1988 in respect of the said 1
gunta of land, where again, the name of Vasudeva Rao was not
reflected.
The third respondent is said to have passed an award on
26.04.1990 and had fixed the compensation at Rs.234/- in
8
respect of the 1 gunta of land. It was shown that Byrappa was
entitled to the same. It is further stated that Vasudeva Rao,
during his lifetime, had got converted an extent of 5 guntas of
land out of the property held by him from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes, as per the order of the competent
authority dated 26.11.1960, a copy of the conversion order is
annexed to the petition and therefore, it ceased to be an
agricultural land from the year 1960 and it is for that reason that
the name of Vasudeva Rao is not shown in the revenue records
from that point onwards.
It is hence the case of the petitioners that the third
respondent had misled itself in issuing the preliminary
notification and the final notification in the name of the wrong
person and even though the same was notified and an award
having been passed, the possession of the property had
remained with the petitioners even as on the date of the petition.
It is therefore claimed that the acquisition proceedings had no
effect on the said extent of land, as the petitioners continued to
9
remain in possession and the petitioners have claimed in the
writ petition that the factum of the petitioners continuing in
possession of the said extent of land measuring 63 ft East to
West and 17.30 ft North to South shown by the letters
‘ABRNA’ in the sketch annexed to the petition, continues to be
in their possession and that they are also willing to have the
same inspected by any Agency.
While matters stood thus, it is the case of the petitioners
that the fourth respondent on behalf of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board, had issued a notification under the
provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966 proposing to acquire an area of 178.05 sq.mts. of land
held and possessed by the petitioners, for the benefit of the
sixth respondent for the purpose of the BMRCL Project dated
31.01.2009 and thereafter a final notification was issued dated
23.02.2010. The petitioners were served with a notice under
Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act of their intention to take over
the land measuring 178.05 sq.mts. The BMRCL authorities had
10
consequently entered upon the property and had marked an area
measuring 254.41 sq.mts. earmarking the same for being taken
over. It is the case of the petitioners therefore, that the said
extent would not be taken possession of, as there was no
notification issued to acquire the said extent of land. In that, it
is the case of the petitioners that 1 gunta of land having been
acquired by the National Highways Authority, the remaining
extent would alone be taken over by the BMRCL authorities
and hence, the claim of BMRCL authority to take over a total
extent of 254.41 sq.mts., was not justified. In that, it is further
stated that the National Highways Authority had never taken
possession of 1 gunta of land bearing Sy.No.13/3A2 from the
petitioners, under the earlier acquisition proceedings, as there
was no earlier notification issued in the name of Vasudeva Rao
under whom the petitioners claim and no compensation being
paid in respect of the same, it is not for the BMRCL to lay
claim to the said extent of 1 gunta of land which is already an
alleged subject matter of acquisition proceedings.
11
Insofar as the notification issued under the KIAD Act and
the acquisition of land to the extent of 178.05 sq.mts. is
concerned, the petitioners have no grievance. In that, they have
been paid compensation through the medium of the KIADB in
respect of the said acquisition. However, on the say of the
BMRCL that the National Highways Authority having acquired
1 gunta of land as already stated earlier, which was the subject
matter of acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1988
while in the contrary, the petitioners claim, always remained in
their possession and it is that extent which according to the
BMRCL, the National Highways Authority has permitted them
to utilize the same and it is on that basis that the BMRCL had
sought to lay claim over the said extent of land, apart from
178.05 sq.mts. which was duly acquired under the KIAD Act.
It is in this background that the present petition is filed negating
the claim of the BMRCL in respect of 1 gunta of land which is
claimed to be the subject matter of acquisition proceedings as
already stated, which the petitioners would stoutly deny and
12
claim that they have been in continuous possession of the same
and the acquisition proceedings are invalid.
3. The respondents having entered appearance in this
petition, pleadings have been completed. In the course of the
proceedings, an application in I.A.1/2012 dated 7.6.2012 was
filed by the petitioners questioning the claim of BMRCL that
the petitioners were not the owners of the entire extent of
178.05 sq.mts. which was the subject matter of acquisition, as
there was a road existing in respect of which the compensation
could not be paid to the petitioners. If that is excluded,
compensation could be paid only in respect of 166.67 sq.mts. It
is that controversy on the basis of which the petitioners had
sought a direction to pay the compensation in respect of the
entire extent of 178.05 sq.mts., on the petitioners handing over
the possession of the same to BMRCL. Incidentally, it was also
highlighted that the 1 gunta of land which was the subject
matter of acquisition proceedings under the National Highways
Authority Act, was also in the possession of the petitioners and
13
that unless the possession of the same was given up, the project
would come to a halt and hence, during the course of the
hearing on I.A.1/2012, it was felt that as the matter would have
to be adjudicated and having regard to the urgency pleaded, the
following order was passed, dated 10.09.2012:
“The application I.A.I/2012 for direction dated
7.6.2012 coming on for orders, the same is vehemently
opposed on behalf of the State Government on the
ground that the very entitlement of the petitioners
claiming the land in question which is the subject
matter of the main petition, is under serious dispute
and the question of granting any direction as prayed
for in the present application, does not arise.
The learned counsel appearing for the sixth
respondent – The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
Limited, however would submit that by virtue of the
interim order granted by this Court whereby the
respondent is restrained from interfering with the
subject matter of the writ petitions as well as the
limited extent of land which is the subject matter of the
present application, has resulted in the ongoing metro
rail work having come to a standstill. Notwithstanding
14
the dispute as between the petitioners and the State
insofar as the claim over the land and the entitlement
of the petitioners to claim compensation in respect of
the same, the learned counsel for Respondent No.6
would submit that the compensation amount which
would be payable in respect of disputed areas include
not only the land covered under the main petition but
the portion of land which is the subject matter of the
present I.A.1/2012, though the second part of the claim
being disputed by the Metro Rail Corporation namely
the portion of land which is the subject matter of
I.A.I/2012, the counsel would submit that in order to
ensure that the Metro Rail Project is not delayed, the
sixth respondent would make a deposit of the entire
amount of compensation before this Court, subject to
the result of these writ petitions and therefore, seeks
vacating the order of stay.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that if the matter has to be heard at length with
reference to the material on record as well as the
objections raised by the State, he would have no
objection if the amount of compensation being kept in
deposit before this Court subject to the result of the
writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader also
would not be averse to the said procedure being
15
adopted, if the petition is heard on merits in due
course.
Accordingly, without entering upon the
controversy or expressing any opinion about the claim
of the petitioners or the objection by the State as
regards the subject matter of the main petition as well
as the limited extent of land that is the subject matter
of I.A.I/2012, the Respondent No.6 is granted two
weeks’ time to deposit the entire amount of
compensation payable, not only in respect of the land
which is the subject matter of the main petitions, but
also the portion of land which is under dispute and
which is the subject matter of I.A.I/2012, before this
Court. On such deposit, the said amount shall be
deposited in a Nationalised Bank by the Registry of
this Court for a period of one year, renewable subject
to further orders of this Court and subject to the result
of these petitions. Accordingly, the interim order
granted earlier stands vacated with liberty to the sixth
respondent to proceed with its ongoing project over the
subject lands in question, subject to the deposit of the
amount as directed hereinabove. I.A.1 stands disposed
of accordingly. However, it is clarified that the dispute
as regards the claim of the petitioners in respect of
11.38 square metres, is not resolved by this order and
shall remain open for adjudication at the time of final
16
hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners still continue to be in
possession and require reasonable time to remove their
movables and make the same available to Respondent
No.6. Accordingly, two weeks’ time is granted to
hand over vacant possession of the property in
question to Respondent No.6.
Issue rule. Post for hearing in the usual
course.”
It is pursuant to this order that the petitioners who were
admittedly in possession of the 1 gunta of land which was the
subject matter of earlier proceedings as well as the area
measuring 178.05 sq.mts., which was the subject matter of the
acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act, which was
handed over to the respondents, the buildings and other
structures standing thereon were demolished and the BMRCL
was enabled to proceed with its project. Reciprocally, the
compensation amount in respect of the entire extent of land,
namely 1 gunta of land which was the subject matter of the
earlier proceedings as well as the area of 11.38 sq.mts. which
17
was sought to be denied out of 178.05 sq.mts. which was the
subject matter of acquisition, was deposited before this Court
and subject to the result of the writ petition, the petitioners gave
up possession of the said extents of lands. It is thereafter that
the petition has now come up for hearing.
4. The respective pleadings of the respondents are thus:
In the Statement of objections filed on behalf of the State
Government dated 9.1.2012, it is claimed that the land in
Sy.No.13/3A2 to an extent of 1 gunta of T. Dasarahalli, was
acquired for the National Highways and the land was taken
possession of in terms of Section 16(2) of the LA Act, in the
year 1987-88. A copy of the notification is sought to be
produced as Annexure-“R1”. It is claimed that compensation
in a sum of Rs.234/- was awarded for the said land and it was
deposited in the name of the Tahsildar, as the land in question
was a kharab land and vested with the Government. That as per
the RTC extract for the year 1986-87, the name of one Byrappa
is shown in Column No.9 and also in the name of National
18
Highways. Copies of the notification issued under Section
16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and a copy of the award
dated 6.4.1990 are sought to be produced. It is further stated
that the revenue records for the years 1986-87 were considered
for the purpose of issuing notifications under Sections 4(1) and
6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the name of the kathedar
is shown as Byrappa, though it was later classified as kharab
and therefore treated as Government land.
The claim of the petitioners having retained possession is
denied, while generally negating the claim of the petitioners
that possession was not taken and that proceedings had lapsed,
by a further additional statement of objections, affidavit dated
14.08.2012 of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National
Highway Division. It is stated that insofar as the lands in
Sy.No.13/3A2 measuring 1 gunta is concerned, this was
notified along with other lands totally measuring 11 ½ guntas
under Section 4(1) for the purposes of formation of parallel
service road to the State Highway No.4 from KM.10 to KM.30
19
and final notification dated 3.9.1998 was issued for the said 11
½ guntas and the revenue records indicated the kathedar as one
Byrappa for the year 1986-87. Since Byrappa was not residing
in the village, proceedings had been notified on the land in
question. The mahazar was drawn up as regards taking of
possession and published in the village chavdi and it is also
stated that an award was drawn up and approved and it was
duly gazetted and the award amount was deposited with the
Tahsildar, as the land was treated as a kharab land. Insofar as
the claim of the petitioners that the said land was converted
land, it is clarified that there are no records available pertaining
to the conversion in the office.
By a further additional Statement of objections dated
4.9.2012, the State has further claimed that apart from
Byrappa’s name in the revenue records, there are no other
entries. This has been clarified by the Tahsildar, that right from
the year 1976-77 to 1999-2000, there are no other entries in the
revenue records and in respect of the acquisition of land for the
20
National Highway is concerned, the Revenue records stand
mutated. It is also reiterated that as per the report of the
Tahsildar and the revenue records, there are no documents or
entries found for alienation or conversion, except the entry of
the year 1963, which reflects the name of Byrappa.
It is further pointed out that the petitioners have not
produced any documents to show how the vendors of the
petitioners got the land in question from Byrappa, if at all and
there is no document to establish title of the vendor of the
petitioners, or their predecessor in title and hence, it cannot be
said that the petitioners have approved title to the property.
Insofar as Respondents 4 and 5 – respondents
representing the KIADB is concerned, it is contended that the
challenge to the acquisition proceedings both under the Land
Acquisition Act and the KIAD Act are hit by delay and laches.
Insofar as the proceedings under the KIAD Act are concerned,
the same is for a public purpose, namely for the benefit of the
Bangalore Metro Rail and hence, there is no infirmity or
21
illegality in the proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioners
that their names are not reflected in the notification or in the
award. However, the award passed by the third respondent at
Annexure-“G” indicates that the portion of the land acquired for
the National Highways, is a kharab land. As such, the amount
of compensation has been deposited with the Tahsildar and the
petitioners have not questioned the same.
There is no material placed before the Court of the
petitioners having sought to recover the compensation from the
third respondent, while it was always open for them to approach
the third respondent for release of compensation by establishing
their title to the property and hence, it is not open for them to
claim that they have not received any compensation from the
National Highways Authority or the Special Land Acquisition
Officer for National Highways. It is too late for the petitioners
to agitate that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act
was in the name of the wrong persons and the proceedings
having become invalid on account of the same. It is however
22
not denied that the acquisition under the KIAD Act was in
respect of an extent of 178.05 sq.mts. Insofar as Respondent
No.6 is concerned, again it is contended that the challenge if
any, under the second acquisition proceedings, it is only at the
time that the respondents sought to take possession under the
KIAD Act that the petitioners have chosen to challenge the
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for the National
Highways, and the same is barred by delay of over 23 years,
and insofar the challenge to the acquisition under the KIAD Act
by one year and four months, and hence, the petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.
Without prejudice to the same, it is contended that the
property in question falls in road 3B of the project and was
being acquired for the construction of a viaduct which would
host the Metro Rail tracks. It is claimed that the respondent is
not aware whether the petitioners have derived title to the
property in question in the manner described in the petition. It
is however claimed that the acquisition proceedings taken up
23
for the National Highway, is believed to be without infirmity.
In the absence of the petitioners having produced any material
to show that they could lay claim to the lands by virtue of any
title in their behalf, it was denied that the petitioners were in
possession of the property. It is claimed that the possession
was taken under the KIAD Act and handed over to the sixth
respondent on 15.04.2010 and that the proceedings are valid
and in accordance with law and hence, the question of quashing
the notifications, would not arise.
5. Insofar as the extent of land acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act and which has been permitted to be taken over
by the sixth respondent by the National Highways Authority of
India, cannot be questioned in the present proceedings, in the
absence of any challenge to those acquisition proceedings over
the years.
The exchange of correspondence between the BMRCL
and the National Highways Authority of India is sought to be
produced, to establish its stake over the said land in question
24
and it is contended that neither was the petitioner entitled to
question the acquisition proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act or under the KIAD Act.
The petitioner in turn, has filed a rejoinder to contend
that the notification issued by the State Government under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as 1 gunta of
land in the year 1987, was not issued in the name of the
petitioners or their predecessor in title. It is evident that as on
the date of the notification, the land in question was no longer
agricultural land and it had been converted for non-agricultural
purposes and therefore, the question of revenue entries being in
the name of Vasudeva Rao or the petitioners, would not arise.
The land having been treated as non-agricultural land and
the petitioners claiming through Vasudeva Rao having paid
property taxes in respect of the land and the Katha Certificate
issued are sought to be produced along with a rejoinder and
therefore, when the notification was issued in the year 1987, the
State having proceeded on the basis of revenue entries which
25
were redundant and which were in respect of non-existent
persons even according to the pleadings of the State, would
certainly render those proceedings invalid. It is on record that
the land in question having been converted for non-agricultural
purposes, Vasudeva Rao had constructed five shops facing the
National Highway and it is that portion of the land which was
notified by the State for the benefit of the National Highways
Authority for widening of the highway and it could not
therefore be construed as kharab land and the notifications
having proceeded on that basis, was clearly irregular.
Therefore, the petitioners have yet again thrown a challenge
that the same be subjected to inspection, in order to establish
their contentions.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, notwithstanding
that the petitioners had failed to question the acquisition
proceedings initiated in the year 1987, there is material on
record to indicate that the land as notified in the first instance
for the benefit of the National Highways Authority in the year
26
1987 has proceeded on the basis that it was agricultural land
and that the kathedar was one Byrappa, when in fact as on the
date of the notification, the land was converted and may not
have been reflected in the revenue records. Even assuming that
further proceedings had been taken, the factum of possession
having been taken, is only sought to be asserted by reference to
the notification under Section 16(2) of the LA Act. The
petitioners and before them, Vasudeva Rao having continued in
possession of the land, is established by reference to other
documents such as tax paid receipts and katha certificates
issued by the Local Authority over the years. Therefore, if
possession was never taken under the earlier proceedings, it
cannot be said that the land in question had vested in the State.
Though the delay and laches in the petitioner seeking to
question the said acquisition proceedings on those grounds
would again loom large, the situation as on the date of the
petition is also to be kept in view. In that, it is only when the
sixth respondent namely the Metro Rail Corporation which
27
sought to take possession of the land on an ostensible
permission granted by the National Highways Authority in
utilizing the land that had purportedly been acquired for its
benefit under the 1987 notification and pursuant to the
subsequent acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act for the benefit of the sixth
respondent, that the sixth respondent was faced with resistance
from the petitioners who were apparently well entrenched in the
property and as already stated, by having constructed the shops
therein, which is a fact not denied by the sixth respondent.
Incidentally, there is no dispute as regards the ownership
and possession of the land by the KIADB insofar as the
notification under the KIAD Act is concerned, except that the
KIADB in its statement of objections has taken note of the
denial of the title of the petitioners by the State Government
insofar as the extent of 1 gunta of land which was the subject
matter of the 1987 notification under the Land Acquisition Act.
In any event, the sixth respondent which was seeking to take
28
possession not only of the 178.05 sq.mts. of land which was the
subject matter of the notifications under the KIAD Act, but also
the 1 gunta of land in respect of which it had obtained
permission from the National Highways Authority to utilize for
its project, which was also a public purpose. It is in that
background that I.A.1/2012 was filed before this Court and the
controversy as to the entire project of the sixth respondent
being stalled on account of the stiff resistance by the petitioners
to give up possession of the lands, unless the controversy as
regards the shortfall of the land actually acquired, in that the
BMRCL sought to question the entitlement of compensation to
the extent of 178.05 sq.mts., whereas there was a road in
existence in respect of which compensation was not due to the
petitioners and that the actual land being acquired was only
166.67 sq.mts. However, when it was pointed out that not only
was the Respondent No.6 being denied possession of the extent
which was the subject matter of notification under the KIAD
Act, but the 1 gunta of land which was purportedly acquired
29
and taken possession of by the State Government under the
1987 notification as well, that as a measure to enable the sixth
respondent to proceed with its project which was bound to be
delayed on account of the controversy raised by the petitioners
that as an adhoc measure, it was directed that the sixth
respondent deposit the entire amount of compensation in
relation to the disputed area of 11.38 sq.mts., as well as 1 gunta
of land which was being taken over by the sixth respondent and
pursuant thereto, the petitioners are said to have given up their
possession to the property and it is thereafter that the sixth
respondent has demolished the structures thereof and has
proceeded with its project. It is now that the matter has come
up for final hearing.
7. Given the pleadings of the State Government in
seeking to justify the acquisition and its claim that it has taken
possession, it is to be noticed that the State Government bluntly
disputes the existence of any Title Deeds in favour of the
petitioners or thier vendors and also denies any conversion of
30
land in favour of the petitioners or for the nebulous claims that
the RTC extracts in respect of the land pertaining to a particular
year, stood in the name of one Byrappa who, even according to
the State, was not residing in the village and also nebulously
claims that the land is classified as ‘B’ Kharab and therefore,
the compensation amount of Rs.234/- has been deposited with
the Tahsildar. The pleadings are confusing and not clear. The
fact that the State Government negates the Title Deeds, namely
the Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioners, the tax-paid receipts,
the katha certificate issued by the Local Authorities and the
physical existence of shops which were there in the property,
which the petitioner had to give up by virtue of the orders of
this Court, are not taken into account.
8. Given the above circumstances, as the petitioners have
divested themselves of the possession of the property at the
instance of this court and not only in respect of 11.38 sq.mts.
which was the area in dispute, but also 1 gunta of land which
was the subject matter of the earlier acquisition proceedings, it
31
cannot be said that the petitioners can be denied of the benefit
which would have accrued to them in the event of the
petitioners having been recognized as the true owners of the
land which is acquired, albeit for a public purpose. In that view
of the matter, when there is no dispute that physical possession
had been retained by the petitioners throughout and had been
recognized by the local authorities and in the face of the State
Government having ignored the fact that the land was converted
land and that the revenue records would not have reflected the
name of the kathedar if the land had been converted in the
revenue records, the discrepancies are explained. Therefore, in
the light of the above facts and peculiar circumstances, the
petition is allowed.
9. It is necessary therefore for the said extent of land
which was already been utilized by the BMRCL for the Metro
Rail Project, again by virtue of the interim order of this Court
that there be fresh proceedings, post-facto, in order to regularise
32
the taking over of the land and for purposes of payment of
compensation to the petitioners.
Insofar as Annexures “J” and “K” are concerned, the
matter stands resolved. In that, the notifications having been in
respect of an extent of 178.05 sq.mts., it was not open for the
BMRCL to have questioned the extent of land, much after the
final notification and therefore, the question of quashing
Annexures J and K would not arise.
The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of
compensation in respect of the extent of 178.05 sq.mts.
The petition insofar as Annexures “J” and “K” is
concerned. In the fact of the circumstance that there was a
corrigendum to the notifications Annexures “J” and “K”, as per
Annexure –R-16 produced by Respondent No.6 to indicate that
it was at the instance of the petitioners that a survey was
conducted of the land in question and it was found that the
petitioners were in possession only to an extent of 166.67
33
sq.mts. Therefore, the petition insofar the challenge to
Annexures “J” and “K”, fails and the petition is allowed in part
in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
