Karnataka High Court
Dr. O.L Prabhu vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation ... on 15 February, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.55570 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dr. O.L.Prabhu,
Aged about 59 years,
Son of Sri.O.M.Lingappa,
Residing at No.7837,
Caminito Camelia,
San Diego, California 92127,
United States of America.
Also at No.100,
Sholur House,
Kumara Park West,
Bengaluru 560 020.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Advocate for
Shri Purushotham .R., Advocate)
AND:
1. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
Limited, (a Joint Venture of
Government of Karnataka and
2
Government of India),
B.M.T.C.Complex,
3rd Floor, K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru 560 027,
By its Managing Director.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Krupa West,
Bengaluru 560 020,
Represented by its Commissioner.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri N.N.Harish, Advocte for Respondent No.1;
Shri K. Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent to
award compensation to the petitioner for taking possession and
utilizing the Schedule Property towards Pocket Track Area and
construction of Metro Pillar No.282 in the Schedule Property.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders, this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court with a grievance that the petitioner had purchased the land allotted by the Bangalore 3 Development Authority (BDA) under a sale deed dated 9.3.2000. A khatha certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and he has been paying taxes in respect of the property. Since it was a vacant site, it transpires that the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) had approached the BDA seeking permission to put up a pier on the land which had been purchased by the petitioner. The BDA unknowingly had indicated that it is a vacant land on which the BMRCL was at liberty to erect the pier and it was accordingly erected. The petitioner who was abroad, came home to find out that there was construction in his property. It was thereafter that in retrospect it was realized that the BMRCL and BDA had committed this folly in having utilized the land of the petitioner unauthorisedly. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner having approached the BDA seeking clarification as to the manner in which the land of the petitioner 4 had been utilized, the BDA had then realized its folly and had then taken BMRCL into confidence of its mistake. It is thereafter that the petitioner not having been provided any remedy, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri G. Krishnamurthy appearing for the counsel for the petitioner.
4. On the previous occasion, the counsel for the BMRCL Shri Harish had sought time to obtain instructions on further course of action. It is now stated at the Bar that BMRCL is left with no alternative but to initiate acquisition proceedings as a matter of formality to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner. However, it is tentatively suggested that the compensation would be in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per square foot and this would be subject to determination by a final award. And that formal proceedings would have to be initiated post facto, in view of the default having been committed in not proceeding in accordance with law.
5
5. Therefore, the exact amount of compensation payable to the petitioner would be determined in due course. Insofar as the tentatively admitted amount of Rs.5,000/- per square foot, shall be paid over to the petitioner forthwith, in respect of the extent of land that has been acquired. This shall be subject to the final determination upon hearing the petitioner and on consideration of the merits of the claim of the petitioner to a fair compensation. The petitioner claims that the guidance value itself, is at Rs.9,000/- per square foot. The question of enhanced compensation is left open.
The respondent - BMRCL shall pay the petitioner forthwith within a period of four weeks, the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per square foot subject to further determination in due course.
6. The petition is allowed in terms as above. The respondent - BMRCL shall take further steps to ensure that proceedings are initiated for determination of compensation, 6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS