A.M. Hanumanthe Gowda vs Bangalore Development Authority

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners in all these petitions are before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to modify the respective resolutions allotting alternate land to the extent of 50% of the utilised land and further direct the respondents to allot land to the extent of 100% as ordered in W.P. No. 45695/2011.

Since the issue in all these petitions is with regard to the aspect as to whether the petitioners are to be compensated towards the entire extent of the land which belong to them and has been utilized by the respondents without the formal process of acquisition being followed, these petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of narration of facts so as to understand the issue involved herein and the rival contentions urged, the facts arising in the petition in W.P. No. 46260/2013 is taken as the lead case.

The petitioner therein claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 83 (Re-Sy. No. 83/1A) measuring 33 guntas situate at Mallathahalli village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The manner in which the petitioner had acquired the right to property has been referred to. The land belonging to the petitioner had been utilized by the respondents for formation of 100 ft. road. The petitioner contends that he had objected to the same since such utilization was without compliance of the due process of acquisition and the compensation being paid. The petitioner further contends that the respondents had assured that he would be compensated in full and as such had permitted the respondents to utilise the said land. Subsequently, the respondents relying on their resolution have allotted the petitioner only 50% of the land as per the resolution in Subject No. 394/2011. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is claiming that he is entitled to compensation to the extent of 100% of the utilisation of the land and is therefore before this Court.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is contended that the petitioner being aware of the fact that he would be allotted 50% of the developed land has accepted the same and at this belated stage has approached this Court which is not sustainable. The respondents in order to indicate that 50% of the developed land which was allotted to the petitioner has been conveyed, have relied on the possession certificate and also the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Further, in the instant lead case, the petitioner has relied on the relinquishment deed dated 16.03.2013 to indicate that on the 50% of the land being allotted to the petitioner, he has relinquished his right in favour of the respondents in respect of the land that has been utilised for formation of the road.

In the other petitions, the contentions as urged by the petitioners therein are to the similar effect with reference to the land and the extent as indicated in the respective petitions which belonged to the petitioner therein. However, the issue in all these petitions is with regard to the manner in which the petitioners are to be compensated.

Though the rival contentions have been urged, it is to be noticed that the very same issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 45695/2011 (BDA). This Court while disposing of the petition on 26.07.2012 has disapproved the manner in which the respondents had resolved to compensate the owners only to the extent of 50% of the land. However, while disposing of the petition, this Court had issued certain directions to indicate the nature of consideration that was to be made. For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to extract Para-8 of the said order:-

"8. I dispose of this petition by issuing the following directions:

(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) There appears to be some dispute regarding the extent of the petitioner''s land utilized for the BDA''s purpose. The petitioner shall produce the necessary documents in support of his claiming that his land, used up by the BDA, actually measures 3 acres.

(iii) On considering them 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) The respondent BDA shall also award the special damages to compensate the petitioner for illegally occupying the property for the last 4 years.

(vi) 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.

(vii) The respondent BDA shall complete the enquiry and pass the order within two months from the date of the receipt of the anticipated representation.

A perusal of the same would indicate that this Court had indicated the method that is to be followed while compensating the land loser to the equivalent value either in terms of money or land that is to be granted. This is in respect of the persons whose lands have been utilized by the respondents without following the due process of acquisition. Learned counsel for the respondents would however submit that even if this Court ultimately holds that the petitioners are entitled to any relief, the same can only be in terms of the direction No. (iv) issued in W.P. No. 45695/2011.

Having noticed the rival contentions and the directions issued by this Court in the earlier proceedings, what cannot also be lost sight is that I had an occasion to take note of the said directions and also take into consideration the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by a similarly situated person while considering the case in W.P. No. 25751/2012 disposed of on 06.08.2014. While doing so, I had taken note of the fact that even in the relinquishment deed, the land loser had reserved the right to seek for the remaining extent of 50% of the property and as such allotment of 50% and execution of documents has not taken away the right to seek for remaining 50%. Taking note of all these aspects at this juncture, in any event, the respondents cannot contend that the petitioners would not be compensated to the full extent of the land that has been utilized.

However, the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition would cumulatively indicate the method that is to be adopted to calculate the value of the land that has been utilized by keeping in view its nature as also its value and thereafter even if 50% of the developed land has been granted to the land-loser, the value thereof would have to be worked out and be deducted from the value worked out in respect of the total extent utilised. It is thereafter the difference if any payable to the land loser will have to be worked out by the respondents and that portion could be offered in monetary terms or land if available. In any event, the compensation would have to be to the extent of 100% either by way of grant of equivalent land or land of higher value by working out the proportional extent so as to offset the same value or to allot a similar land to the petitioners. To the said extent, the directions as issued by this Court would be applicable. The allotment of 50% of the developed land already made would not bar the consideration of the case of the petitioners since the said aspect has already been considered by this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 25751/2012.

Therefore, at this juncture, though I see no reason to quash the resolutions in view of the direction having already been issued by this Court, the very same directions as issued would have to be applied to the case of the petitioners herein as well. The nature of the land would have to be worked out and the extent that has been allotted would have to be taken into consideration and thereafter an appropriate decision for compensating the petitioners to the remaining extent would have to be made by the respondents.

To enable such consideration, the petitioners shall now file a detailed representations along with a copy of this order with the respondents indicating the extent of the land and the nature of the land as also the value according to each of the petitioners. The respondents would thereafter work out taking into consideration as to whether the details as furnished by the petitioners if appropriate or in the alternative, look into the nature of the land that had been utilized by the respondents and also take into consideration the nature of 50% of the developed land that has been allotted to the petitioners and take a decision in the matter in the manner as indicated and in accordance with law and intimate the same to the petitioners in an expeditious manner, but not later than two months from the date on which the representations are made. Needless to mention that if the consideration is in favour of the petitioners and either the land or the monetary compensation is payable, further steps in that regard shall be taken in an expeditious manner.

In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.