Violation of Article 300-A and illegal land utilization require the respondents to allot alternative land and determine compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

ORDER

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue the Writ of Certiorari quashing the proceedings of the 479th Board Meeting dated: 07.03.2019 passed by R-2 at Annexure-A as void ab-initio and;

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot the alternative equivalent similarly situated land to the petitioners in place of their measuring 0-20 guntas in Sy No. 201/1A situated in Jigal "Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, which is used for formation of 100 feet road and;

iii) Issue the Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay damages t the petitioners by ascertaining the same thought the Sole Arbitrator for having used the land measuring 0-20 guntas in Sy No. 201/A all along without paying even an infinitesimal compensation to the petitioners and;

iv) Grant of any other Writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case by allowing the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGA for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 - KHB and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the wife and children of late Ashwathachari who expired on 07.11.2013. During his life time, subject land bearing Sy. No. 201/1A measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Jigala village, Attibele hobli, Anekal taluk, was owned and possessed by him and the same was succeeded to by the petitioners upon his death. Upon coming to know that the respondents 2 to 4 - KHB intended to form a 100ft road in a portion of the aforesaid land, the said Ashwathachari addressed a letter dated 05.01.2012 to the KHB intimating them that he had no objection for the KHB to utilise a portion of his land bearing Sy. No. 201/1A subject to the condition that the KHB allots alternative land which is adjacent to his land to the extent his land was utilised by the KHB for formation of a road. However, no action was taken by the KHB in this regard.

(i) Subsequently, upon the demise of Ashwathachari, the petitioners herein submitted representations dated 10.01.2014 and 21.01.2016 to the KHB reiterating the aforesaid request made by Ashwathachari and requesting the KHB to allot adjacent alternative land to the extent it was utilised by the KHB for formation of road. Meanwhile, in its proceedings dated 20.02.2014, the KHB discussed allotment of alternative land to the petitioners on account of utilisation of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 201/1 A belonging to the petitioners which had been utilised by the KHB for formation of road. However, no order in this regard was passed by the KHB. Instead, vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019, the KHB resolved to allot alternative developed land to an extent of 9583 sq.ft. per acre proportionate to an extent of 20 guntas of utilised land without indicating the locality of the said land proposed to be allotted to the petitioners.

(ii) It is the grievance of the petitioners that apart from the fact that the valuable constitutional rights of the petitioners contemplated under Article 300-A have been violated by the impugned order in that the KHB has illegally and highhandedly utilised the subject land of the petitioners measuring 20 guntas without acquiring the same by due process of law, the impugned order offering alternative lands only to an extent of 9583 sq.ft. per acre i.e., to an extent of 4791.5 sq.ft. towards 20 guntas of land which is only about 22% of the said land of 20 guntas belonging to the petitioners is clearly arbitrary, illegal and deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions are to be issued against the respondents in this regard.

(iii) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions:-