Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. Narayana Swamy, P.S. Dinesh Kumar, JJ.
Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority - Appellant
Vs.
P. Manohar Reddy - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 697 of 2018
Decided On : 12-09-2019
G.S. Kannur, Adv., S. Vijay Shankar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a litigant cannot claim benefits based on inter-party judgments where some land losers may have been benefited more than their entitlement, and the request for equal area of developed land does not merit consideration.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to land equivalent to the area lost, the valuation of the land, and the principle of parity in compensation. The court held that the petitioner's request for equal area of developed land does not merit consideration, and the appeal was allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition contending that the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) utilized his land for the formation of an outer ring road and sought a writ of mandamus to allot 100% of the alternate developed land in lieu of the land utilized. The BDA contested the petition, and the Hon'ble Single Judge directed the BDA to allot equal extent of land or complete acquisition proceedings and pay compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request for equal area of developed land does not merit consideration, and the appeal was allowed. The petitioner was given the liberty to agitate his rights with regard to the valuation of the sites and seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to land equivalent to the area lost, the valuation of the land, and the principle of parity in compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's request for equal area of developed land does not merit consideration, citing the principle that a litigant cannot cry foul of unequal treatment or discrimination based on inter-party judgments in which some land losers may have been benefited more than their entitlement.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was given the liberty to agitate his rights with regard to the valuation of the sites and seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT :
P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J.
Bengaluru Development Authority has presented this petition challenging order dated 4th October 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.34145/2016 (LA-BDA).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status in the writ petition.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition contending inter alia that BDA has utilized his land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy. No.68 situated in Banasawadi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk for formation of outer ring road and that he is entitled for land equivalent to 100% area of land lost by him. However, BDA has resolved to allot only 75%. Accordingly, petitioner sought a writ of mandamus and to direct the BDA to allot land equivalent to 100% of the area of land utilized by the BDA and other reliefs which read as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to'
1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent -the Commissioner, B.D.A., T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020, to consider the request of the Petitioner and to allot 100% of the alternate developed land / developed sites in favour of the Petitioner, in lieu of utilization of his land bearing Sy.No.68, measuring 1 Acre 05 Guntas, situated at Banasavadi Village, K.r.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore.
2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent the Commissioner, B.D.A., T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020 to consider the Representation dt.20.06.2007 produced at Annexure-A and allot alternate developed land / developed sites to the Petitioner, as prayed in the said Representation. 3. Issue a Writ Mandamus, directing the Respondents to allot alternate developed land / developed sites to the Petitioner, as the Respondents have utilized totally,1 Acre 05 Guntas of land in Sy. No.68 situated at Banasavadi Village, K.r.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, as was given in favour of one Sri.Mirle Varadaraju, as per the Order dt.16.09.2014 in W.P.No.46259/2013 (LA-BDA) passed by this Hon'ble Court, which is mentioned as per the Notice of B.D.A. dt.18.09.2015 produced at Annexure-g to the Writ Petition.
4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to award special damages to the Petitioner for 20 years, as they utilized the land of the Petitioner in the year 1997 that too without any acquisition proceedings.
5. Pass such other orders, as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of the justice and equity."
4. Petition was contested by the BDA by filing statement of objections.
5. The Hon'ble Single Judge by the impugned order has directed the BDA to allot equal extent of land having equal potentiality. It is further directed, that, should BDA were unable to allot alternate land, it shall notify the land in question, complete acquisition proceedings within a month and pay compensation as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013. Feeling aggrieved, BDA has presented this writ appeal.
6. Shri.G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Advocate for the BDA contended;
that the direction by Hon'ble Single Judge to allot equal extent of land having equal potentiality is unsustainable in law;
that BDA acquires lands and develops layouts. While developing,45% of the land will be utilized for the purpose of civic amenity etc. (10% is utilized for civic amenity sites,20% for roads and 15% for parks and open spaces). Thus only 55% of the acquired land shall be available for sale;
that while developing one acre of land which measures 43,560 sq. ft.,6 sites measuring 50' x 80' or 10 sites measuring 60' x 40' or 20 sites measuring 30' x 40' can be formed. Ap
