AMREEN SHAIK v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 4 -

thereof has been issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). That the said sites formed part of land bearing Assessment Nos.154/2 and 155/1. Pursuant to notification that was issued by the respondent -KIADB on 15.10.2019 amongst various other properties, properties of the petitioners were also acquired. That compensation was determined in a manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and lesser than that of the owners of the properties adjacent to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners drawing attention of this Court to page 76 forming part of Annexure-E- a Land Committee Report, submits that the persons who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners have been recommended for grant of compensation at the market value of Rs.55,502 per sq. mtr. while petitioners have been recommended for grant of compensation at market value of only Rs.14,000/- per sq. mtr. He submits that there is no rationale or logic in this discrimination meted out by the respondent authorities while recommending

- 5 -

grant of compensation to the petitioners. Hence the petition.

4. In response learned counsel for respondent- BMRCL draws attention of this Court to the notification dated 30.03.2017 produced at Annexure R-4, at page 30 of the statement of objections, wherein guideline values are fixed and reading of which reveal that Rs.35,600/- per sq. mtr. is fixed in respect of residential sites forming part of layout approved by competent authority, while Rs.27,000/- per sq. mtr., is fixed in respect of sites coming within the limits of local bodies, and Rs.550(lakhs) per acre fixed in respect of agricultural land. He further submits that the compensation has been awarded in terms of Annexures-A-1, 2 and 3 on petitioners having voluntarily opted for the same as such the petitioners are estopped from retracting the same.

5. Referring to the same learned counsel for respondent-BMRCL submits that since the land has

- 6 -

remained unconverted and the layout in which it forms part of has not been approved by the competent authority and have adopted value fixed for agricultural land as above. Thus he submits there is no discrimination meted out to the petitioners in the matter. He submits earlier petitioners had approached this Court challenging the general award and pursuant to the order passed therein petitioners opted for a package compensation as per Annexure-R-7 and 8. He further submits that petitioners having voluntarily accepted the said mode of determination of compensation are estopped from filing the present petition.

6. In response learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioners are not retracting from the package compensation but there grouse is with regard to discriminatory treatment meted out by the respondent authorities.

- 7 -

7. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 further drawing attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent-KIADB submits that there is title dispute pending adjudication in O.S.No.5603/2019 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore and until determination of the rights of the petitioners they would not be entitled to claim compensation.

8. Heard. Perused the records.

9. Acquisition of petition schedule properties is not in dispute. Though learned counsel appearing for respondent-BMRCL heavily relied upon the guidelines at page No.36 of Annexure-R-6 produced along with statement of objections to contend that since the land belonging to the petitioners is not converted, it is to be assessed for compensation under the category of agricultural land at Rs.550 lakhs per acre, perusal of Annexure-E at page 76 on the other hand reveal that the properties being claimed by the petitioners are at

- 8 -

Sl.Nos.33, 35 and 39 which are assessed at Rs.13,866/-, Rs.14,220/-, Rs.14,000 per sq. mtr., respectively. While the sites similarly situated with that of the petitioners forming part of the very same survey numbers having khatha and PID numbers have been assessed for compensation at Rs.55,502/- per sq. mtr. The guidelines relied upon by the respondent-BMRCL reveal that the sites forming part of a layout approved by competent authorities have to be assessed at Rs.35,600 sq. mtr. and sites coming within the limits of local bodies have been assessed at Rs.27,000/-. There is no dispute of the fact that the properties belonging to the petitioners are residential sites. Therefore first contention of they forming part of agricultural land cannot be countenanced. The second contention to be determined is whether sites of the petitioners formed part of the layout that are approved by competent authority or they fall within the limits of local body, the material produced by the petitioners more particularly description given at page 76 at column No.4 make it clear that the sites claimed by the petitioners have

- 9 -

been assigned with PID numbers and have been issued khatha by BBMP making it clear that sites coming within the jurisdiction of BBMP, satisfying the requirement of guideline No.2 referred to herein above.

10. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter emanating from the records, this Court is of the considered view that recommendation made by the Land Committee as seen at page 76 recommending value of the properties as noted above cannot be accepted. More particularly when similarly situated sites belonging to persons forming part of very same survey number have been recommended for payment of compensation at Rs.35,600/- per sq. mtr.

11. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed. Impugned communications at Annexure-A-1, A2, A3 are set aside. Respondent No.2 authority is directed to consider the representations made by the petitioners as per Annexures-J1, J2 and J3 in the light of the observation made herein above taking into consideration the market

- 10 -

value recommended in respect of properties situated adjacent to the property of the petitioners forming part of said survey number and such determination be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to state that respondent authorities are at liberty to consider disbursement of the compensation subject to petitioners furnishing documents of title in support of their claim free from encumbrance. If need be petitioners are at liberty to make fresh representation in the lines of Annexures-J1, J2 and J3 to respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3. Such representations shall accompany all such documents justifying the claim of the petitioners.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN