Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 have in response to the issuance of the preliminary notification themselves stated that they are the joint khatha holders of the land measuring about 18 acres. This is evident from Annexures R1 to R6 to the respondents' counter. He submits that the inheritance khatha vide MR No.1/76-77 is a joint khatha of the petitioner Nos.1 to 6. He also brings to my notice that the compensation amounts pursuant to the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer are disbursed jointly to the petitioner Nos.1 to 6. In this regard, he brings to my notice the copy of the cheque, dated 02.04.2002 (Annexure-R9), which is drawn in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 6. He also brings to my notice the affidavit filed by the three petitioners, namely, K.R.Chandrashekhar, K.R.Mohan and K.R.Kumar, wherein they state that they are the co-owners of the property in question. A copy of the affidavit is at Annexure-R8.

13. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there is absolutely no pleading on the allotment of the incentive sites made to Sanjeevappa and his brothers. He submits that Sanjeevappa, H.Eraiah, Nagaraja and Galappa are separate khatha holders. As per Rule 4(d), if two or more persons jointly own the acquired land, they shall together be entitled to the sites under the 1989 Rules.

14. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Ranga Ramu submits that the discrimination need not necessarily be pleaded in the memorandum of the writ petition. He asserts that 21 sites are allotted to Sanjeevappa and his brothers for acquiring 21 acres from them.

23. However, just because nothing is mentioned about Sanjeevappa in the writ petition, much less furnishing any material particulars, the doors cannot be shut out to the petitioners. The ends of justice would be met by my directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation furnishing the material particulars of the cases of Sanjeevappa and others. If one such representation is submitted within three weeks from the date of the issuance of certified copy of today's order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the B.D.A. within one month from the date of receipt of its representation. It is the Court's anxiety that equals cannot be treated unequally. It is not known whether Sajeevappa and others are the joint khatha holders or separate khatha holders. It goes without saying that if Sajeevappa and others are the separate khatha-holders, the question of giving any relief to the petitioners by the B.D.A. would not arise. However, if Sanjeevappa and others are also the joint khatha- holders and are indeed given 21 sites of 40' x 60' dimension for surrendering 21 acres of lands, the petitioners cases also have to be considered in accordance therewith. It is trite that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly.