Karnataka High Court
N Pradeep Goyal vs State Of Karnataka on 30 March, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WP No. 38475 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 38475 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. N PRADEEP GOYAL,
SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS LRS
1A. SMT. REKHA GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O PRADEEP GOYAL.
1B. GURAV GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
1C. KUSHAL GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2. N SUDHIR KUMAR GOYAL,
S/O NARYAN PRASAD GOYAL,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
CHETAN B C
Location: 3. N RAJEEV KUMAR GOYAL
HIGH COURT SINCE DECEASED, REP BY HIS LRS
OF
KARNATAKA
3A. SMT.POONAM GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O N RAJEEV GOYAL.
3B. VISHAL GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O N RAJEEV GOYAL.
3C. YADU GOYAL,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O N RAJEEV GOYAL.
-2-
WP No. 38475 of 2013
ALL ARE RESIDING AT 39, K R ROAD,
OPP: VANI VILAS HOSPITAL,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V V GUNJAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/
EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING,
14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(BMRCL)
1ST FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING,
14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K H ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
5. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 002.
6. THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE FORCE,
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 03.06.2020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI.N N HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. NITYANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
-3-
WP No. 38475 of 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE KIAD ACT AS
INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO IN VIEW OF THE EXTENSION
THE METRO RAILWAY (CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS) ACT 1978
VIDE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.8.2009 BY VIRTUE OF
METRO RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT ACT 2009 VIDE ACT 34/09 TO
BANGALORE CITY IN KARNATAKA VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.10.09 VIDE ANNX-AF AND AF1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of writ court with the following two prayers:
"i) Quash entire proceedings under the KIAD Act as invalid and void ab initio in view of the extension the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act 1978 vide Gazette notification dated 27.8.2009 by virtue of Metro Railways (Amendment Act 2009 vide act 34 of 2009 to Bangalore city in Karnataka vide Notification Dated 16th October 2009 vide Annexure-AF and AF1.
ii) Quash the Corrigendum passed on Annexure-A Notice No. CI 482 SPQ 2011 Bangalore dated 22-12-2011, issued under Sec.3(1) and 28(1) of KIAD Act- Annexure-B Notice No.KIADB/METRO/NIL/2010-11 Bangalore dated 3-1-2012, issued under Sec.28[2] of KIAD Act, Annexure-AD Dated 15.6.2013 No. Nil under Sec.28 [3] of the KIAD Act and Annexure-AE Dated 27.07.2013 No. KIADB/ LAQ/ METRO/ 2013-2014 under Section 28[6] of the KIAD Act and all consequential -4- WP No. 38475 of 2013 orders and holding that acquisition of addl. land in respect of Properties No.39 of City Sy No. CTS 83 in Ward 47, Dharamaraya Swamy Ward, K R Road, Bangalore City for City Market Station, are made with vindictive attitude and colorable exercise of powers, by issuing a Writ Of Certiorari as illegal arbitrary exercise of power of power and contrary and in violative of art. 19[1][f], Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution Of India as the 4th respondent BMRCL has failed to prove the requirement of the Additional land as shown in Annexure and consequential notification and therefore the acquisition of the excess land is prima facie not in public interest, not bonafide acquisition and with malafide intentions."
2. After service of notice, the State and its Department of Fire Force have entered appearance through the AGA; the KIADB & its SLAO are represented by their Panel Counsel; the respondent-BMRCL and the respondent-BBMP which is subsequently arrayed as a party vide order dated 03.06.2021 are represented by their Panel Advocates. Statement of Objections and additional Statement of Objections have been filed by the respondent-BMRCL after the filing of amended petition. There are certain applications & objections filed thereto. There is a rejoinder filed the petitioners. The main matter -5- WP No. 38475 of 2013 itself is being taken up for consideration, so far as the claim for a broader access road is concerned. All contentions as to validity of the acquisition in question are reserved to be urged in W.P No. 38475/2013 as rightly submitted at the Bar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners regardless of the textual prayers in the petition argued that, his clients having lost the land in acquisition are entitled to have a broader access road of 15 meters in terms of the extant Guidelines of BMRCL and therefore the answering respondents are not justified in providing an access road which is less than 12 feet wide; width of the road has something to do with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the their land which adjoins what is acquired. He presses into service the decision of the Apex Court in M/S MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. (P) LTD. vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1979 SCR (2) 641. He banks upon the Spot Inspection Report secured by this court pursuant to intermediary orders. No submissions were made in support of the textual prayers in the petition.
-6-WP No. 38475 of 2013
4. Learned advocates appearing for the KIADB and the BMRCL per contra contended that the subject Guidelines promulgated by the BMRCL cannot be construed as an instrument holding out to the public at large and therefore the 'doctrine of promissory estoppel' in the fitness of things has to remain miles away from the case at hands. They also point out BMRCL's new 'Way Leave Policy' dated 07.07.2022 which provides for a free road/way of 3.5 meters width to the properties that are landlocked and that for ways of larger width, the claimants have to enter into a ten year lease, the annual rentals being 3% of the extant Guideline Values as notified by the Government for the purpose of registration & stamp duty. All the advocates appearing for the respondents contended that the FAR for the petitioners' property does not in any way depend upon width of the access road or way.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is -7- WP No. 38475 of 2013 inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under for the following reasons:
(a) Petitioners land having been acquired for the KIADB, they still retain the adjoining portion; the BMRCL which has got the subject property allotted from the KIADB has left an access road of a little less than 12 feet width, free of cost for being used are ingress & egress.
The contention of the Petitioners that they are entitled to have a 'Leave Way' of 15 meters width under the extant BMRCL Guidelines free of cost is difficult to countenance. Firstly, there is no such legal obligation to provide a road of larger width, free of cost when land is acquired and compensation is being paid. The right to have the pathway cannot be claimed in such a way as to affect a part of the property in acquisition. The claim should be more on the principle of easement of necessity.
(b) The vehement reliance of the Petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in MOTILAL, supra does not much come to their aid because, the then obtaining Guidelines cannot be construed as a representation to the -8- WP No. 38475 of 2013 public at large; even the Petitioners counsel admits that they were never put in circulation or publication. They are more in the nature of intra departmental communications. Therefore, the 'doctrine of promissory estoppel' or of 'legitimate expectation' has no role to play as rightly argued by learned Panel appearing for BMRCL.
(c) Petitioners have failed to establish that the FAR in respect of their property is dependent upon the width of the access road in question. The extant BBMP Byelaws provide for the exploration of 75% of the area of the plot which comes within the commercial zone. The maximum utilization of the land in terms of the FAR under the extant Byelaws depends upon the sital area, regardless of the width of the access road in question as rightly contended by learned Panel Advocates appearing for the BMRCL & BBMP. The Spot Inspection Report though gives the dimensions of the roads in question; it does not much come to the aid of petitioners, at all. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that unless -9- WP No. 38475 of 2013 wide access road is given, his clients would not be in a position to use their property to the fullest extent is misconceived.
(d) The above having been said, there is some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients having lost their property in acquisition, are entitled to have a little larger width of the road, free of cost and still larger width on lease basis consistent with the Leave Way Policy 2022. What is now accorded is the width of a little less than 12 ft. It needs no research to know that the width of the access road should ordinarily be commensurate with the property concerned. 12 ft. appears to be a little on the lower side and therefore, it should be made 16 ft. (sixteen feet) and that would assuage the wounded feelings of the land losers, who have been battling against the acquisition itself. They also should be permitted to seek the larger width on lease basis in terms of the Leave Way Policy of 2022, of course subject to its conditions being satisfied. This is a matter
- 10 -
WP No. 38475 of 2013wherein the decision pertains to the domain of BMRCL which should view the things with little leniency.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the observations hereinabove made, which shall be construed as directions violation of which may amount to contempt of the court.
The contentions as to validity of acquisition proceedings are reserved to be urged in the pending case i.e., W.P.No.38478/2013 (LA-KIADB).
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/