Karnataka High Court
C Subramanya Naidu vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429
WP No. 6616 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 6616 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
1. C SUBRAMANYA NAIDU
S/O (LATE) KUPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 153
RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 050
2. SMT SWAROOPA C S
W/O SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 52 AND 53
FLAT NO.403, SAPTHAGIRI REGENCY
6TH CROSS, VAJPAYEE NAGAR
CHIKKALLASANDRA
Digitally signed by
VIJAYA P BENGALURU-560 061
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 3. M PADMANABHAN
S/O R MUNIRATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 86,
IST B CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE, 3RD PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 085
4. M MOHANVEL
S/O R MUNIRATHNAM
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 86,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429
WP No. 6616 of 2023
IST B CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
BANASHANKARI III STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BENGALURU-560 085
5. J DEVARAJULU
S/O J GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT# 30, 3RD CROSS
7TH MAIN, 7TH BLCOK
4TH PHASE, SB COLONY
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085
6. R JYOTHI
W/O N RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 6,
9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
R K LAYOUT
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 070
7. NARASIMHALU NAGARAJ
S/O B NARASIMHALU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT # 19,
10TH B CROSS, BALAJINAGAR
ITTAMADU, BENGALURU-560 085
REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
B NARASIMHALU
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429
WP No. 6616 of 2023
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE PREMISES
ANNEX-3, N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BBMP, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE
ANNEX-3, #105, IST FLOOR
NR SQUARE
BEGNALURU-560 002
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE
ANNEX-3, # 105, IST FLOOR
NR SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE
ANNEX-3, # 105, IST FLOOR
NR SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. BBMP/RI/RRN/EE/TDR/04/2020-
21 DTD 4TH OF MARCH 2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-
C) ONLY IN THE RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE
PROPERTIES AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429
WP No. 6616 of 2023
ORDER
Petitioners are the owners of residential property consisting of sites in Sy. Nos. 59 and 60 of Mylasandra Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, coming within the jurisdiction of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, BBMP, Bangalore. It is submitted that the respondent - BBMP in exercise of the power under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has issued notification informing that in lieu of the acquired land, respondents would be distributing the Transferable Developed Rights ("TDR"). The notification is published in Newspaper and the same is enclosed as Annexure-C.
2. The petitioners state that they have made out representations at Annexure-D series clearly taking their stand that they do not intend to accept TDR. It is further submitted that despite such stand of the petitioners, respondents are intending to form road while insisting on the petitioners to accept TDR in lieu of cash compensation. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429 WP No. 6616 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP submits that it is a settled position of law that in the event the land owners do not accept TDR, the Authority would take further steps for land acquisition or direct procurement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the orders passed in W.P.No.1166/2019 and 2432/2019, wherein this Court has clarified the legal position while stating that the notification under Section 14-B of the Act is in the nature of an offer to the land owners to accept TDR in lieu of monetary compensation and when the land owners do not choose to accept TDR, the respondent - BBMP cannot insist upon the petitioners to accept TDR and if circumstances are so made out, the respondent must initiate steps for acquisition and till such time, the enjoyment of the petitioners' property cannot be interfered with.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429 WP No. 6616 of 2023
5. Noticed the orders passed in W.P.No.1166/2019 and 2432/2019. The relevant observations made in the said orders are extracted as herein below.
Paras 7 to 9 in W.P.No.1166/2019:
"7. 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 owners to give up their properties 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."
8. In light of the provisions of Section 14-B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the 'Development Rights -7- NC: 2023:KHC:26429 WP No. 6616 of 2023 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.
9. 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 properties of petitioner. However, the respondent- BBMP is entitled to:-
a. Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of properties 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, 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.-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429 WP No. 6616 of 2023 c. All other contentions of the parties are kept open and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner."
Para 11 in W.P.No.2432/2019:
"11. It is made clear that no occasion arises for quashing of the notification at Annexure-B dated 24.12.2018, as the same is only in effect an offer, which has been rejected by the petitioners and if the respondent-BBMP were to require the properties belonging to the petitioners, the respondent-BBMP is at liberty to take further action as observed above."
6. In light of the above, the present petition is required to be allowed while the notification under Section 14-B of the Act does not require to be set aside.
7. 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 properties of petitioners till appropriate steps are taken as above. However, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to:- -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:26429 WP No. 6616 of 2023 a. Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of properties of the petitioners as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing;
b. They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioners 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 without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.
8. Subject to the above, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP