ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority. 2. The facts are that the petitioner’s husband late Ramakrishna and his family members were said to be the joint owners of land bearing survey no.107 measuring 12 guntas of B.Narayanapura village, K.R.Pura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.. The said land was equally divided and Ramakrishna, the husband of the petitioner had been allotted 2 guntas of land as between the brothers. It transpires that certain others had released their rights in respect of their shares in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was thus totally held an extent of 6 guntas of land in survey no.107.

3. It further transpires that the BDA without initiating any acquisition proceedings had utilized 6 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner for the formation of a road. Since the petitioner had opposed the said utilization and the illegal manner in which the land was utilized, the BDA had assured that the petitioner would be allotted alternative land to the extent of 100%. And having believed the words of the respondent, the petitioner had not taken any steps in the expectation that alternative land would be allotted to him. The respondents are said to have conducted a joint survey and the Executive Engineer, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Surveyor of the BDA had submitted a report, confirming that the BDA had utilized 6 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner and recommended the allotment of alternative land and the BDA had also passed a resolution as on 16.1.2012, to allot only 50% of the land in favour of the petitioner in lieu of having utilized 6 guntas of land of the petitioner. It transpires that the BDA thereafter had allotted 3 guntas of land, but there are instances where alternative land has been allotted to the extent of 100%. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

4. The respondent – BDA has filed statement of objections denying the petition averments, but to admit that in other instances, there has been allotment of alternative land in lieu of the cash compensation. In which event, the petitioner being denied her due is unjust and is arbitrary.

It is noticed that in a similar case, this court while allowing the petition had disposed of the same with certain directions which shall apply to the petitioner as well.

5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the following directions to the BDA:-

(i) The petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the BDA within two weeks from today with the necessary supporting documents for the purpose of showing the market value of the land in 2008.

(ii) On considering the same and on hearing the petitioner, the BDA shall arrive at the determination of the value of the lands as well as the measurement of the lands in question.

(iii) If the BDA wants to give alternative land in lieu of cash compensation, it must indicate the value of the sites to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner either to accept the offer of the BDA or not to accept the offer or to accept the offer of the BDA only in part, meaning the petitioner may take some alternative land in respect of a portion of the acquired land and insist for the payment of the compensation in respect of the other portions of the acquired land.

(iv) The respondent BDA shall also award the special damages to compensate the petitioner for illegally occupying the property.

(v) If the petitioner is not satisfied with the order determining the market value of the property, it is open to him to challenge the same before the Civil Court and seek further enhancement of the amounts.

The said exercise shall be carried out with expedition within a period of three months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of in terms as above.