APPALAPPA, SON OF CHANNARAYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, (BYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE APPALAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Justice Anand Byrareddy 1. The petitioners question the acquisition of land in Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas of Benniganahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore. The petitioners claim as owners of the land and are said to have purchased the same from the predecessor in title, one Channarayappa. It is stated that an extent of 26 guntas had been acquired by the State for the benefit of NGEF, under a notification dated 28.09 1977. The petitioners complain that they have not received compensation in respect of the same. It is stated that the State Government had issued a notification dated 10.11.2008 under Section );">4(1) read with Section );">17(1)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act' for brevity), to acquire the petitioner's land bearing Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, inclusive of kharab land, for the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'BMRCL' for brevity). The petitioners claim that no notice has been issued with regard to the acquisition, notwithstanding that their names are reflected in the Record of Rights. It is the case of the petitioners that they had approached this Court earlier in W.P. No. 26752 -54/2009 challenging the final notification, contending that the Metro Rail line runs on the Southern side of the Byappanahalli Railway Station and that the petitioner's land was situated beyond Byappanahalli Railway track and the Kasturi Nagar road which separated the petitioner's land from the Metro Rail line. However, it was contended by the respondents that the land of the petitioners was required for the specific purpose of accommodating a foot over -bridge with its landing on the petitioner's land and therefore, the contention that the Metro Rail line is away from the petitioner's land and hence, the acquisition of the petitioner's land was inexplicable, is not tenable. At the hearing of that petition, it is stated that the respondents had produced a sketch indicating the situation of the foot over bridge as proposed, and it was also noticed that the landing of the foot over -bridge did touch the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 15/2. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that if the angle of the foot over -bridge could be realigned, it was quite possible to facilitate the foot over -bridge while at the same time, the substantial portion of the petitioner's land which would otherwise be unutilized for the project, could be saved from acquisition. In that circumstance, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent as follows: Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to give a representation to the fifth respondent to relocate the landing of foot over bridge and the same shall be considered by the fifth respondent in accordance with law, keeping in view the public interest. The petitioner's request for relocation of the landing of the foot over bridge however was rejected as per Annexure -"A" to the present writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to question the same as well as the acquisition itself. The petitioner has had the benefit of an interim order dated 26.11.2010, protecting him from dispossession of the land.

(2.) IT is now pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate Shri S.M. Chandrashekar appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent -Corporation has in fact relocated the landing of the foot over -bridge, in that, the civil works are completed as evident from the photographs furnished; At the hearing, this Court had called upon the respondent to make a categorical statement that the landing of the foot over -bridge does not touch the petitioner's land in question and therefore, would not be required to be acquired. The contention of the respondent that notwithstanding the fact that the foot over bridge after relocation may not touch the petitioner's land, the fact remains that the land in question would be required for traffic integration, is said to be unfair and unreasonable. It is sought to be pointed out that the foot over bridge, as relocated now, abuts Kasturi Nagar road and the edge of the foot over bridge is 100 feet away from the boundary of land in Sy. No. 15/2. Therefore, the original purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, is no longer relevant. The earlier petition having been disposed of on the note that such relocation would address the Corporation's requirements, and the Corporation now doing a volte face to claim that it would be required for other purposes, is clearly an afterthought and therefore, illegal. The situation that the petitioner's land may be required for "traffic integration", is again vague and not clarified. If this entails the involvement of other agencies who are required to co -ordinate in providing services to enable such traffic integration, it can hardly justify the Corporation seeking to claim that the petitioner's land would be required for such purposes and this would clearly be beyond the power and jurisdiction of the respondent. The learned Senior Advocate would seek to draw attention to plans and maps made available, that the land in the vicinity of the disputed area acquired for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, or the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, cannot be construed as part of the metro project. Any connectivity to be provided to the KSRTC Satellite Terminal or the BMTC Bus Terminal, cannot be construed as part of the Metro Rail Project and hence, the claim of the respondent -Corporation as to the requirement of the land for the purposes of traffic integration involving those agencies, is clearly not tenable.

(3.) A .L. Sadanand Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others, JT (2008) 9 SC 622