Karnataka High Court
Sri S M Prasad vs The Deputy Commissioner on 30 November, 2022
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.23589 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.M.PRASAD,
S/O LATE S.SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT KONGARAHALLI,
MATADABEDI,
KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 440,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571 313,
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLLEGALA SUB DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA - 571 440.
3. KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAYS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
1ST FLOOR, PWD ANNEXE BUILDING,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR.
2
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSHIP SUB DIVISION,
NO.2565, SRIRANGA NILAYA,
SIRA GATE,
TUMKUR - 572 06.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSHIP SUB DIVISION,
NO.1254, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION,
MYSORE - 570 023.
6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSHIP-3,
KOLLEGALA SUB DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA - 571 440
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
7. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KONGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOLLEGLA TALUK - 571 440.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO 6 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS UNDER ANNEXURE-K DATED
17.2.2021 AND ANNEXURE-L DATED 05.07.2021 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"a) Call for records
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction as the case may be directing the Respondent No.2 and 6 to consider the Representations under Annexure-K dated 17.2.2021 and Annexure-L dated 05.07.2021.
c) Direct the Respondents not to demolish the existing building and not to insist the petitioner to enter upon consent agreement of sale till the determination of valuation of the property proposed to be acquired
d) Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grants in the circumstances of case including awarding of the cost of the writ petition".
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of property bearing katha No.271/270 measuring 17.26 Sq.mtrs which was acquired by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of highway under Section 15 and 16 of the Karnataka State Highway Act, 1964. In terms of 4 communication as per Annexure-G, the petitioner was awarded a compensation of Rs.8,30,434/-.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that he has not received the compensation so determined, as the compensation awarded to his neighbours was higher even though the extent of land and buildings of the neighbours were less compared to that of the petitioner. That apart, the building of the petitioner was of RCC roof while buildings of the neighbours of petitioner were of tiled roof. Therefore, the respondents-authorities ought to have granted higher compensation to the petitioner than that of his neighbours.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the extent of land and building of the petitioner acquired by the respondents-authorities is 48.91 sq.mtrs., Thus, she submits that the authorities have not taken into consideration the actual extent of land and building acquired. 5
5. Per contra, learned AGA while refuting the case of the petitioner has filed a calculation sheet/chart of comparison with regard to the compensation paid to the petitioner and neighbours of the petitioner namely, Smt.Mahadevamma and Sri.Narayanshetty which reads as under:
CHART OF HOW COMPENSATION IS CALCULATED Sl.no. Property no Total area of Affected Total extent of Value of the site Valuation fixed in Total building/land area site (including fixed the building compensation in sqm vacant site and (including vacant building area) site and building in sqm area) Is 4800/- sqm
1. petitioner 271/270 24.96 14.91 17.257 (17.26) 17.257 x 4800 3,73,800 (Sec 26 82,333 SM Prasad (5.86 x 4.26) (3.50 x As seen in R1 (Annexure F of RFCTLARR 7,47,600 Valuation 4.26) pg31, 1200/per Act) + 100% ________ report fact valuation sq mt fixed Solatium (sect 8,30,433 sheet report fact multipled by 4 30 and 1st sheet times, SR schedule of act, Value)=82,333 that is double the amount) = 7,47,600/-
2.Smt 277/2.76 24.67 10.86 9.25 9.25 x 4800 = 2,93,400+100% 44,400
Mahadevamm 44,400 Solatium 568,600
a (Adjacent = 5,86,800/- ________
property 6,31,200
whom Petition
is comparing
3. 275/274B 15.57 8.29 5.14 5.14 x 4800 = 1,51,000 + 24,672
Naryanshetty 24,672 100% Solatium 3,02,000
(Adjacent = 3,02,000/- ________
property 3,26,672
whom
Petitioner is
comparing
Party Wrong calculation
Petitioner (SM Prasad) 7,47,760
17.26 = 43.314
Mahadevamma 5,86,800
9.25 = 63438
Narayanshetty 3,02,00
5.14 = 58,754
6
6. Referring to the said chart, learned AGA submits that there is no discrimination of any nature in awarding the compensation to the petitioner as well as his neighbours. The actual extent of land and building belonging to the petitioner as well as the aforesaid neighbours of the petitioner having taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the aforesaid chart submits that measurement of the land and the building of the petitioner taken for the purpose of calculation is lesser compared to the actual land and building acquired for the purpose. Though, she fairly submits that the value of the land and building taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the compensation payable to the petitioner as well as his neighbours is the same and the only difference is with regard to the measurement of 7 the property of the petitioner which is 48.91 sq.mtrs. and not 17.26 sq.mtrs.
8. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and perused the materials on record.
9. It is relevant to note the averments made by the petitioner at paragraph 5 and 6 of the petition. The petitioner in the said paragraphs himself has stated the property bearing katha No.271/270 measuring 17.26 sq. mtr. was acquired by the respondent-authorities. Thus, there is no dispute even by the petitioner with regard to the extent of land and building acquired.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon Annexure-D wherein, the extent of site is shown as 48.91 and extent of building is shown as 48.91 sq.mtrs. Referring to the same, learned counsel for petitioner 8 vehemently submits that the extent of land and building acquired is 48.91 sq. mts. and not 17.26 sq.mts.
11. This Court having partly heard the matter by order dated 06.12.2022 had directed the learned AGA to furnish fresh calculation sheet. On 08.12.2022, learned AGA submitted calculation and value adopted by the respondents- authorities. Learned AGA further submits that there is no error or falsity in the measurement and valuation adopted by the respondent-authorities. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed measurement and calculation chart. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication of the matter, had directed the respondent No.4-Assistant Executive Engineer (KSHIP-3), Kollegal to cause measurement of the property of the petitioner once again in the presence of the petitioner on 9 09.12.2022 at 12.00 p.m. and to submit a report with following specific directions;
"a) The measurement shall include the entire property of the petitioner as is existing;
b) measurement shall refer to the land and building of the petitioner to the extent sought to be utilised for the road widening.
c) the measurement and the report shall also specify the nature and quality of construction which will be used for the purpose of valuation at later point of time.
d) the photographs and necessary sketch taken/prepared at the time of carrying out measurement shall also be produced along with the report.
e) and such other details as respondent No.6 deems fit to submit along with the report."
12. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 08.12.2022, respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer has conducted inspection survey and valuation of the property in the presence of the petitioner and has submitted a detailed report has directed hereinabove. It is also brought on record that the petitioner has participated in the said inspection and survey. The same has not been disputed.
10
13. Learned AGA submits that the measurement and valuation which is now shown in the report is the same as that of the one which was earlier considered by respondent- authorities while granting compensation. Though it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the building of the petitioner was of RCC roof and the buildings of the neighbours was a tiled roof resulting in difference of value, now with the subsequent inspection it is confirmed that the building of the petitioner is tiled roof. Even, the extent of the property sought to be acquired by the respondents-authorities for the purpose of widening of road is also the same as mentioned in the earlier report.
14. In view of the aforesaid admitted position and also in view of the comparative chart produced by the learned AGA for having granted equal amount of compensation to the petitioner as well as to his neighbours, which is confirmed by 11 the subsequent inspection and report submitted pursuant to the directions of this Court nothing survives for consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GPG