IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 19429 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. RAGHUVARA J S, S/O SRI J R SREEPADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO 28, 2ND MAIN, POORNAPRAJNA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE 85.

2. SRI P R SURESH S/O P R RADHA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO 1107, 35D CROSS, 28TH MAIN, IV T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 41.

3. SRI ADINATH NARDE Di gitally S/O A B NARDE, signed by AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KIRAN KUMAR R RESIDING AT NO 6, Location: JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR, HIGH BANGALORE 560075.

COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THEIR P A HOLDER SRI RAGHUVARA J S I.E., THE 1^ST PETITIONER

4. SRI H K SRINATH S/O H S KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 413, 43 RD CROSS, 7TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560082 REPRESENTED BY THEIR P A HOLDER SRI RAGHUVARA J S I.E., THE 1^ST PETITIONER …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF BBMP INDIRA CANTEEN DEPARTMENT BBMP BANGALORE EAST, N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560002. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BBMP BANGALORE URBAN K G ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI. N.R.JAGADEESWARA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

THIS WRIT PEITITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01/03/2024 VIZ ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1. The prayers in this writ petition was for a direction to consider the representation dated 01.03.2024 and to remove the structure built on the schedule property and restore the property to the petitioner by vacating the property unauthorisedly occupied by the BBMP.

2. It was the case of the petitioners that their land was ordered to be forfeited to the Government for contravention of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, but on those orders being challenged, ultimately, the order of forfeiture was set aside and the land stood restored to the petitioners.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that taking advantage of the order of forfeiture, the Government unauthorisedly put the BBMP into occupation of the entire property and allowed the BBMP to establish an Indira Canteen. It is therefore contended that the order of forfeiture having been quashed, possession would have to be restored to the petitioners.

4. However, on the last occasion, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would have no objection for the acquisition, but until the lands are acquired in a manner known to law and the BBMP pays the compensation to the petitioners, the BBMP should be put on terms and should be directed to pay a rentals at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submitted that a negotiation was conducted on 10.01.2025 and the petitioners had in fact made a demand for Rs.15/- per sq.ft.

6. In my view, since the petitioners made a submission before this Court that they would be agreeable to collect a rent of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. till the BBMP acquires their land in a manner known to law, they cannot be permitted to resile from the said submission. Consequently, since it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners is being utilized in a manner which is impermissible in law, it would be necessary for the BBMP to acquire the same in accordance with law and by paying appropriate compensation to the petitioners.

7. However, since the BBMP is squatting on the property of the petitioners, it will have to be saddle with the liability of paying rent at the rate of Rs.10/-

per sq.ft. as stated by the petitioners.

8. Co