Karnataka High Court
Mr Vidur Chandy vs The Commissioner on 8 January, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.40233/2017 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
Mr.Vidur Chandy,
S/o Mohan Chandy,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.1, Hayes Road,
"Hayes Hall" 2A, Richmond Town,
Bengaluru - 560025.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Devaraj.K.S by Equitas Legal, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Commissioner,
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
BBMP Head Office Premises,
NR Square, Bengaluru - 560002.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura),
Mahadevapura Zone (TDR Division),
ITPL Main Road, RHB Colony,
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Bengaluru - 560089.
...Respondents
(By Sri.Ashwin.S.Halady, Advocate for R1 and R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
2
impugned notice dated 14.06.2017 issued by the R-2
vide Annex-A and all action taken by the respondents in
pursuance to Annexure-A.
This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property and that along side the Nallurahalli - Siddapura Main Road. The petitioner states that the respondent - BBMP has sought for widening of the road along side the petitioner's property stating that there was a proposal for road widening as contained in the Revised Master Plan- 2015.
2. The respondent - BBMP has issued notice to the petitioner at Annexure-A calling upon the petitioner to accept Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of the monetary compensation.
3. The petitioner states that notice at Annexure- A is ineffect and an offer made pursuant to Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. 3
4. The petitioner states that pursuant to Annexure-A, he lodged his objection as per the communication at Annexure-H and Annexure-J stating that he is not willing to accept Transferable Development Rights in lieu of the monetary compensation.
5. It is submitted by the petitioner that despite such objections, the respondent - BBMP intends to go ahead pursuant to the notice and has been compelling the petitioner to accept Transferable Development Rights in lieu of the monetary compensation for utilization of their property for its project.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP, however, contends that the notification under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has to be read in proper context and under Section 14-B, it is clear that what has been offered to the petitioner as TDR is in lieu of monetary compensation as would be payable 4 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law as may be applicable and that position is made clear on a plain reading of Section 14- B(6), which states that, if the owner does not agree to surrender his area, such land may be acquired by the respondent-BBMP in accordance with law that is applicable.
7. It is further submitted by respondent-BBMP that the proposed road widening/formation of road is in light of the Revised Master Plan-2015 and states that they intended the road widening/formation of road pursuant to the proposal in the Revised Master Plan- 2015 and in fact, the intention is made clear in the notification issued under Section 14-B of the Act itself. It is submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill- founded and the respondent-BBMP being a public Authority would proceed strictly in accordance with law. 5
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 14-B of the Act that has been made by the respondent-BBMP is only an offer made to the property owner to give up his property voluntarily in return for grant of TDR Certificates, which would be in lieu of monetary compensation. In fact, Section 14-B(6) of the Act would clarify the said position. The said provision reads as follows:-
"14-B. Benefit of development rights.-
(6) If the owner does not agree to
surrender his 'Area' required by a Public
Authority for any public purpose, for the
Development Rights and demands for monetary compensation, then the Public Authority may acquire such 'Area' by providing compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing." 6
9. In light of the provisions of Section 14-B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner is unwilling to accept the 'Development Rights Certificates,' which was being offered in lieu of monetary compensation, the respondent-BBMP would have to resort to acquisition under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.
10. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent-BBMP, the BBMP would not interfere with the rights of the property of petitioner. However, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to:-
(a) Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of property of the petitioner as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 7 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing;
(b) They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioner to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance.
(c) All other contentions of the parties are kept open and order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
Subject to the above, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS