IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.56025 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

Smt.M.Pushpamba

W/o Sri.C.Y.Paramashivaiah

D/o Late.Muddaveeraiah

Aged about 48 years

R/o No.332, Rangaswamy building

7^th Cross, 1^st Block

Peenya, Bangalore-560 058.

…Petitioner

(By Sri K.N.Nitish., Advocate)

AND:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited

BMTC Complex, 3^rd Floor

KH Road, Shanthinagar

Bangalore-560 027

…Respondent

(By Sri Sumana Baliga, Advocate)

This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement at

Annex-K dtd.26.5.2014 issued by the respondent and direct

the

respondent

to

pay

compensation

under

the

rehabilitation package to the petitioner in respect of 57.21

square meters of property bearing Katha No.465, CTS

No.1310, situated at 4^th Block, 13^th and 14^th Cross, Peenya

- 2 -

Village, Bengaluru, as per the decision at Annexure-B and in

accordance with the norms fixed in the rehabilitation

package at Annexure-C, etc.

This WP coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’

Group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of

the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K dated

26.05.2014 issued by the respondent and for a

direction to the respondent to pay compensation under

Rehabilitation Package to the petitioner in respect of

57.21 square meters of property bearing Katha No.465,

CTS No.1310, situated at 4^th Block, 13^th and 14^th Cross,

Peenya Village, Bengaluru as per the decision at

Annexure-B and in accordance with the norms fixed in

the rehabilitation package at Annexure-C.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned counsel for the respondent and perused

the material on record.

- 3 -

3.

In addition to reiterating various contentions

urged in the memorandum of writ petition and referring

to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned

counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the

order dated 08.11.2012 Annexure-D passed by this

Court in WP No.24906/2012 in order to contend that in

the said petition, this Court having noticed the specific

contentions of the petitioner that the Rehabilitation

Package in respect of the building situated on 57.21

square meters of land belonging to the petitioner which

was acquired had to be paid by the respondent to the

petitioner directed the respondent to release the

rehabilitation package in favour of the petitioner after

obtaining an appropriate indemnity bond executed by

the petitioner in favour of the respondent. It is

contended that subsequently the petitioner got issued

lawyer’s notice dated 29.01.2013 to the respondent

calling upon them to release the Rehabilitation Package

- 4 -

notified to the petitioner. In view of non compliance on

the part of the respondent, the petitioner initiated

contempt proceedings in CCC (Civil) No.191/2014

before this Court. In the said contempt proceedings,

the respondent produced a draft indemnity bond to be

executed by the petitioner which comprised of both

114.87 square meters as well as 57.21 square meters

in respect of which Rehabilitation Package to be

released in favour of the petitioner as directed by this

Court. In view of the said statement made by the

respondent in the contempt proceedings that the

respondent was ready to release the Rehabilitation

Package in respect of both 114.87 square meters and

57.21 square meters in terms of the draft indemnity

bond produced by the respondent itself, this Court

dropped the said contempt proceedings.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also

points out that as per Annexure-B, a decision was

- 5 -

taken in the meeting held on 09.03.2011 between the

respondent and National Highway Authority of In