(By Sri M.B.Naragund, Senior Advocate for Smt.Sona Vakkund, Advocate for R-1, Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-2 to R-4 and R-6) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents and their officers to forebear from taking any action for demolition of properties in Shahabad except in accordance with law - i.e. with appropriate notification under the relevant enactment and with notice to respective owners/occupants of the properties sought to be acquired and etc. W.P.No.19298/2011 BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Ramakrishna, S/o Ranoji Kasar, Aged about 66 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
2. Mr.Mahadev, S/o Ranoji Kasar, Aged about 65 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
3. Mr.Dawalsab, S/o Ladlesab Inamdar, Aged about 51 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
4. Mr.Habibpasha, S/o late Mohd Johar, Aged about 42 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
5. Mr.Maheboobsab, S/o Bawasab, Aged about 41 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
6. Mrs.Babanbee, W/o Husain Sab, Aged about 62 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
7. Mrs.Hirabai, W/o late Annarao Sinoor, Aged about 71 years, R/o Old Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
8. Mr.Basanna S.Badiger, S/o Shirasappa Badiger, Aged about 67 years, R/o Old Shabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
9. Mrs.Sahebee, W/o Shaik Imam, Aged about 62 years, R/o Old Shabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
10. Mr.Vijay, S/o Veerbhadrappa Wali, Aged about 48 years, R/o Honagunta Road, Shabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
11. Mrs.Annapurna, W/o Kalyanappa Nandi, Aged about 75 years, R/o Honagunta Road, Shabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
12. Mrs.Jeevan Lata, W/o Gunderao, Kanchankote, Aged about 61 years, R/o Honagunta Road, Shabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
13. Mr.Raman Sethoza, S/o Ramprasad Oza, Aged about 50 years, R/o Main Bazar Road, Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
14. Mr.Ganpathi Bhatt, S/o Shankar Bhatt, Aged about 86 years, R/o Station Road, Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
15. Mrs.Saraswati Bai, W/o Tuljaram Ture, Aged about 66 years, R/o Station Road, Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga.
16. Dr.Sadanand G.Kori, S/o G.Kori, Aged about 58 years, R/o Main Bazar Road, Shahabad, Taluk Chitapur, District Gulbarga. ...Petitioners (By Sri Christopher, Advocate for M/s. Cariappa and Co.) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Ambadekar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, M.S.Building, Ambadekar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga District, Gulbarga.
4. The Tahasildar, Taluk Chittapur, District Gulbarga.
5. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Shahbad, District Gulbarga. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-4; Sri M.B.Nargund, Senior Counsel for Smt.Sona Vakkund, Advocate for R-5) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records from the respondents/Administration of Shahabad, with regard to the demolitions carried out in Shahabad pursuant to 17.3.2011 and after examining the legality of the same and etc. W.P.Nos.28457-28468/2002 and 28730-28749/2002 BETWEEN:
1. Mohan Rao, S/o Hanumanth Rao Kakkeri, Age 63 years, Advocate R/o Heroor Park, Opp. Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
2. Smt.Shamala, W/o Mohan Rao Kakkeri, Age 50 years, Household work, R/o Heroor Park, Opp.Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
3. Santosh, S/o Mohan Rao Kakkeri, Age 32 years, Advocate R/o Heroor Park, Opp.Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
4. Rajesh, S/o Mohan Rao Kakkeri, Kakkeri, Age 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o Heroor Park, Opp. Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
5. Smt.Jyoti, D/o Mohan Rao, Age 35 years, Household, R/o Heroor Park, Opp. Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
6. Venkat Rao, S/o Hanumanth Rao Kakkeri, Aged 73 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Jagat Main Road, Gulbarga.
7. Kishan Rao, S/o Hanumath Rao Kakkeri, Age 70 years, Retd. Govt. Servant, R/o Jagat Main Road, Gulbarga.
8. Dr.Raghavender Rao, S/o Hanumant Rao Kakkeri, Age 56 years, Occ.Prof.M.R.Medical College, Gulbarga.
9. Govind, S/o Kishan Rao Kakkeri, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Jagat Main Road, Gulbarga.
10. Sarvattam Rao, S/o Hanumant Rao Kakkeri, Age 65 years, R/o Venkatesh Nagar, Gulbarga.
11. Srinivas Rao, S/o Sarvottam Rao Kakkeri, Age 40 years, B.E., Contractor, R/o Venkatesh Nagar, Gulbarga.
12. Smt.Sunandabai, W/o Tirumalacharya, Age 60 years, Household, Dattanagar, Javergi Road, Gulbarga. ...Petitioners (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga District, Gulbarga.
3. The Commissioner, Gulbarga City Municipal Corporation, Gulbarga.
4. The Commissioner, Gulbarga Development Authority, Gulbarga.
5. The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Gulbarga.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga District, Gulbarga. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1, R-2, R-5 and R-6;
Sri P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for R-3; Sri R.A.Patil, Advocate for R-4) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the acts of demolition conducted by the respondents over the petitioners' property as oppressive, arbitrary and malafide and without any authority of law and etc. W.P.No.1019/2008 BETWEEN:
1. M.A.Mannan, S/o M.A.Rahman, Aged 40 years, R/at Gholkhana, Bidar - 585 401.
2. Rehana Nikath, W/o M.A.Mannan, Aged 36 years, R/at Gholkhana, Bidar - 585 401.
3. Farhana Nazneen, W/o M.A.Gani, Aged 34 years, R/at Gholkhana, Bidar - 585 401.
4. M.A.Gani, S/o M.A.Rahman, Aged 38 years, R/at Gholkhana, Bidar - 585 401. ...Petitioners (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Represented by its Secretary, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar.
Represented by its Commissioner
4. Municipal Corporation, Bidar.
Represented by its Commissioner. ...Respondents (By Sri B.C.Jaka, Advocate for R-3; Sri Vilas Rao.M.More, Advocate for R-4; Vide order dated 24.10.2008 R-1 and R-2 dismissed) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the impugned action of the respondent to be illegal and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners after paying them adequate compensation which they would have been entitled to if action had been taken in accordance with law and etc. W.P.No.1121/2008 BETWEEN:
Smt.Mahadevi, W/o Late Basavaraj Jabshetty, Aged 39 years, Near Ram Mandir, Bidar - 585 401. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Represented by its Secretary, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar - 585 401.
3. Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar - 585 401.
Represented by its Commissioner
4. City Municipal Commissioner, Bidar - 585 401.
Represented by its Commissioner. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 and R-2; Sri S.S.Kumman, Advocate for R-3; Sri M.A.Samad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the impugned action of the respondents to be illegal and direct the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners after paying them adequate compensation which they would have been entitled to if action had been taken in accordance with law and etc. W.P.No.40424/2008 BETWEEN:
Parveen Begum, W/o Miafuz Bayssh, Aged about 40 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o C/o Mehaboob Khan, Railway PWI Office, Bidar. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore, Rep. by Chief Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer, Authorized Officer High Authority, Bidar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar.
5. The City Municipal Council, Rep. by its Commissioner.
6. The Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, Rep. by its Commissioner.
7. Harsha Gupta, Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1, R-2 & R-4; Sri Gourish S Khasampur, Advocate for R-5 & R-6;
Sri M.A.Sahad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-5;
Sri R.K.Ganure, Advocate for R-6;
R7-Served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the demolition of petitioner's building bearing municipal No.9-4- 70 situated at qazi colony, Brahampuri, Bidar as illegal and etc.
W.P.No.40425/2008 BETWEEN:
Syeda Begum, W/o M.A.Gagoor, Aged about 40 years, Occ:House Wife, R/o No.1-7-114, Vegetable Market, Bidar. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore, Rep. by Chief Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer, Authorized Officer High Authority, Bidar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar.
5. The City Municipal Council, Rep. by its Commissioner.
6. The Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, Rep. by its Commissioner.
7. Harsha Gupta, Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-4; Sri Gourish S Khasampur, Advocate for R-5 & R-6;
Sri M.A.Samad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-5;
Sri R.K.Ganure, Advocate for R-6;
R-7 Served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the demolition of petitioner's building bearing municipal No.1-7- 114 [old], 1-7-123 [NEW] situated at corner of vegetable market arch, main road, Bidar as illegal and etc. W.P.No.40796/2008 BETWEEN:
Hanumantacharya Umerji, S/o Raghavendra, R/o 10-833, Brahampur, Gulbarga. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri R.J.Bhusare and Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocates) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Vidhan Soudha, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bangalore.
2. The Regional Commissioner, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
4. The Corporation City of Gulbarga, Rep. by its Commissioner, Main Road Gulbarga. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for R-4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the demolition of petitioner's building bearing No.10-833, measuring 8751 sq.ft situated at Lalagiri Road, Brahampur, Gulbarga as illegal.
W.P.No.40797/2008 BETWEEN:
Syed Afzal Hashmi, S/o Syed Iqbal Hashmi, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Business, R/o No. Noor Khan Taleem, Bidar. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore. Rep. by Principal Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bidar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar.
5. The City Municipal Council Rep. by its Chief Officer, Bidar.
6. The Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, Rep. by its Commissioner. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-4; Sri Gourish S Khasampur, Advocate for R-5 & R-6;
Sri M.A.Samad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-5;
Sri R.K.Ganure, Advocate for R-6) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the demolition of petitioner's shop bearing municipal No.1-7-128 situated at main road, near vegetable market, Bidar as illegal and etc. W.P.No.81735/2009 BETWEEN:
Asif Khan, S/o Hameed Khan, Age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-2-304, Rehmat Lane, Noorkhan Taleem, Bidar. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore. Rep. by Principal Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bidar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar.
5. The City Municipal Council Rep. by its Chief Officer, Bidar.
6. The Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, Rep. by its Commissioner. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-4; Sri M.A.Samad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-5;
R-6 Served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the demolition of petitioner's shops bearing municipal No.9-4-129 (NEW), 9-4-38/11(OLD), 9-4-62(OLD) near Gandhi Gunj, water tank, Chidri Road, Bidar as illegal and etc. W.P.No.81737/2009 BETWEEN:
Md.Amjad Hussain, S/o Md.Hafiz Hussain, Age 62 years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.4-2-98, Noorkhan Taleem, Bidar. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore. Rep. by Principal Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District, Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bidar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar.
5. The City Municipal Council Rep. by its Chief Officer, Bidar.
6. The Bidar Urban Development Authority, Bidar, Rep. by its Commissioner. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1 to R-4; Sri M.A.Samad Siddiqui, Advocate for R-5; Sri S.S.Kumman, Advocate for R-5 and R-6) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the demolition of petitioner's shops bearing municipal No.9-4-86 and 9-4-118 situated near Gandhi Gunj, water tank, Chidri Road, Bidar, as illegal and etc. W.P.No.13477/2008 BETWEEN:
Kranti Kumar, S/o Siddharamesh Mudhol, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Associate Editor, Kranti Kannada Daily Newspaper, Siddharamesh Towers, MSK Mill Road, Gulbarga. ...Petitioner (By Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Vishwanath.H.M., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bangalore.
2. The Principal Secretary, His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore.
3. National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
Represented by its Secretary
4. The Regional Commissioner, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Gulbarga.
6. The Corporation City of Gulbarga, Rep. by its Commissioner, Main Road, Gulbarga. ...Respondents (By Sri R.Devdas, PGA for R-1, R-2, R-4 and R-5) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-B issued by the R6 dated 3.10.2008 and all further proceedings as illegal; declare that the widening of road Gulbarga without payment of compensation in violation of procedure prescribed under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act are without authority of law and etc. The order in these writ petitions having been reserved and being listed for pronouncement today, Ashok B.Hinchigeri J., made the following:
C.A.V. JUDGMENT The petitioners' grievance is over forcibly occupying and using up their properties for the road-widening purpose in Shahabad, a Town in Gulbarga District. It is their case that the respondent authorities, without resorting to the compulsory land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation, are occupying their properties situated on either side of the road. The respondent authorities are not even issuing notice to the occupants of the properties in question.
2. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28457-
28468/2002 and 28730-28749/2002, 1019/2008, 1121/2008, 40424/2008, 40425/2008, 40796/2008, 40797/2008, 81735/2009, 81737/2009 and 13477/2008 submits that there is no sanction in the master plan for the road-widening purpose. He submits that the bulldozing of the buildings only shows how barbaric the respondents' acts are.
He submits that the respondent authorities are not treating the people as human beings. He requests the Court to issue general directions to the concerned authorities not to act arbitrarily and inhumanly in these matters. He submits that the acquisition of land designated for a certain purpose is permissible under Section 69 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, only if the master plan provides for the same.
3. He generally submits that the property-owners have the supporting title deeds. Many of them have got the plans sanctioned before erecting the buildings. Even when they are in lawful possession of the properties belonging to them and developed by them, they are being dispossessed without following the due process of law. He submits that even if the owners and occupants of the properties in question file their claims, the concerned authorities may pass one line order holding that their claims are rejected or that they have encroached a portion of the road.
4. Sri Aditya Sondhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.21042/2011 submits that the property owners cannot be dispossessed without acquiring the land in a manner known to law and without issuing the necessary notice to the respective land owners/occupants for surrendering the possession. He also prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to rehabilitate the land-losers as per the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007.
5. Sri Christopher, the learned counsel representing M/s. Cariappa and Company for the petitioners in W.P.No.19298/2011 submits that though the buildings are demolished, the owners are still in occupation of their properties. It is his fervent plea that they should not be dispossessed pending the enquiry.
6. Sri M.B.Nargund, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the City Municipal Council, Shahabad denies the allegations made by the petitioners' side. He submits that the road-widening project is in public interest. It is being taken up at the instance of the public of Shahabad Town. Many occupants have voluntarily surrendered their possession of the properties in question. He submits that 3/4th of the property owners are already allotted the houses under the Ashraya Scheme. He submits that the affected party may directly approach the District Court without paying any court fee, invoking Section 268(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the said Act' for short).
7. Sri R.Devdas, the learned Principal Government Advocate submits that if the concerned parties file their claims before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 82 of the said Act, the Deputy Commissioner is bound to pass a speaking order. Urging this submission, he tries to allay the misgivings of the petitioners.
8. The submissions of the learned counsel have received our thoughtful consideration. That the road-widening is a public purpose cannot be disputed at all. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the road-widening is taking place using up the property belonging to the City Municipality of Shahabad or belonging to the private owners.
This is a disputed question of facts. In the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion on such factual controversies. Such disputes cannot be resolved without holding an enquiry. The decision on claim of property by or against the Municipal Council can be obtained by raising the dispute before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 82 of the said Act.
The provisions contained in Section 82(1) and (2) of the said Act are extracted hereinbelow:
"82. Decision of claims to property by or against the municipal council.- (1) In any municipal area to which a survey of lands, other than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture only, has been or shall be extended under any law for the time being in force, where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the municipal council, or by any person as against the municipal council it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry, of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim. (2) Any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub- section (1), or, if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority, shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order."
9. We therefore deem it necessary and just to relegate the aggrieved petitioners to the statutory remedy provided under Section 82 of the said Act. The petitioners are directed to file their claims in support of the ownership of the property, the buildings they have raised thereon, etc. before the Deputy Commissioner within two weeks from today.
Similarly, the Shahabad Municipality will also file its claims, if it wants to take the position that the properties in question belong to it and in support of its allegations that the properties are encroached by the private parties. On examining the documentary evidence and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass the order on the ownership of the property and allied questions.
10. If the Deputy Commissioner's order is not acceptable to any party, it is open to him/it to challenge the same before the civil court under sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the said Act.
11. If the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that a particular property, being used for road-widening purpose, is owned by the Municipality and not by any private party, any future dispossession or demolition may be carried out strictly in accordance with law and after issuing notice to the occupants of such properties.
12. In the matters where the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that any portion of the private land is being used for the road-widening purpose, owners of such land have to be compensated without any loss of time. The respondents shall have two options in the matter. They shall elect one of the two options indicated hereinbelow:
(i) The Deputy Commissioner and the Government of Karnataka shall immediately resort to the acquisition of lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. All the acquisition proceedings, including the passing of award and disbursement of the compensation, shall be completed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner holding that a particular private property is used up for and in the course of the road-widening.
(ii) If the above course is not resorted to by the Deputy Commissioner and the Government of Karnataka for whatever reason, then the Deputy Commissioner shall, within one month from the date of the time granted for complying with the above direction, pass an order determining the damages/compensation. If the quantification of the compensation-amount is not acceptable to any of the parties, they shall have the liberty of challenging the same before the competent civil court.
13. It is further made clear that whether the authorities resort to the route of compulsory acquisition of land or pass the order quantifying the damages/compensation, it shall also be open to the authorities to negotiate with the property-
losers by offering alternative property to them in lieu of cash-
compensation. It shall also be open to the displaced persons to seek the benefits due under National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, in cases where it is applicable, and also under the Ashraya Scheme of the State Government.
14. These petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE MD