1. Petitioner sought compensation for building demolition; respondents opposed the acquisition challenge. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31006
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K, JJ
SMT. NANCY PAIS – Appellant
Versus
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP 1074 / 2012
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bandagar Shivaji
For the Respondents: S.G. Hegde, Mamatha Shetty
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bandagar Shivaji
For the Respondents: S.G. Hegde, Mamatha Shetty
The court held that compensation for land acquisition or demolished buildings cannot be determined in a writ proceeding; the aggrieved party must approach the appropriate authorities for such claims in accordance with the law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Land Acquisition - Compensation for demolition of building - Question regarding compensation for acquisition of property cannot be decided by the High Court in a writ proceeding - Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate authorities seeking compensation in accordance with law. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed seeking to declare land acquisition initiated via a final notification in 1978 as lapsed. During the hearing, the petitioner withdrew prayers challenging the acquisition and seeking to restrain dispossession. The remaining prayer sought a direction to the authority for the payment of compensation regarding the demolition of a building on the property.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the question pertaining to compensation for the acquisition of property cannot be decided by the court in the current proceeding.
Issues: Whether the court can determine or direct the payment of compensation for the demolition of a building in a writ petition seeking to quash land acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of compensation for acquired property is a matter to be addressed by the appropriate authorities rather than through a writ petition in this context.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Compensation question for acquisition cannot be decided in this proceeding; liberty granted to approach authorities. (Para 4 )
3. Compensation for acquisition of property cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226/227. (Para 4 )
4. Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate authorities for compensation. (Para 4 )
5. Can a writ court under Article 226/227 decide compensation for land acquisition?
No, the question of compensation for acquisition of property cannot be decided in writ proceedings; the party must approach appropriate authorities. (Para 4 )
Digitally signed by MAYANGAIAH VINOD
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO FINAL NOTIFICATION DT 2.8.78 VIDE ANNEX-H IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER SCHEDULE PROPERTY BEARING NO.11 IN SY NO.1/2 LOTTEGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE NOW COMING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF BBMP LIMIT SANJAYA NAGAR, WARD NO.100 RMV 2ND STAGE HAS LAPSED VIDE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN WP NO.16074-100/10 AND CONNECTED MATTERS VIDE ANNXU (LA-BDA)
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
A memo has been placed on record seeking withdrawal of the second prayer made challenging the acquisition initiated pursuant to final notification in the year 1978 and the third prayer seeking a writ or prohibition restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner.
2. The memo seeking withdrawal of the prayers is taken on record, and the same is accepted.
3. The remaining prayer in this writ petition is only for a direction to the first respondent to pay the suitable compensation to the petitioner for the demolition of the building in the property in question.
4. With regard to the fourth prayer, we are of the opinion that the question with regard to the compensation for acquisition of the property cannot be decided by this Court in this proceeding. However, in view of the facts of the matter pending before this Court with a prayer seeking quashing of the acquisition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authorities seeking compensation, which will be considered in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
