APPALAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(2.) 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:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla appearing for the counsel for the Corporation would submit that the earlier petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.26752-54/2009 was partly allowed. In that, the final notification dated 10.11.2008 was not disturbed and therefore, the petitioner is precluded from challenging the final notification and if the petitioner is permitted to question the same in the present petition, it would result in a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is stated that the possession of the land in Sy.No.15/2 to an extent of 2 acres and 2 guntas including Kharab, was handed over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Corporation as on 29.11.2008 and the total extent of land that was acquired for constructing Byappanahalli Metro Station and Depot which is the major terminal of the Metro Rail Project, would include the provision of infrastructural facilities and transport facilities. It is contended that the land in Sy.No.15/2 is crucial, as it would connect the approach to foot over bridge to the KSRTC bus Terminal and the BMTC Bus Terminal as well as provide parking for Metro Rail commuters using the foot over bridge. It is claimed that it connects the South Western Railway Station, Byappanahalli Metro Railway Station, the Old Madras Road and Traffic Integration area. As per the detailed project report, for the construction of the depot and traffic integration, a large area of land is necessary and the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.15/2 is only a small part. But, if it is denied, it would become an island within the area that would be developed for the aforesaid purposes and therefore would submit that the view sought to be adopted by the petitioners that it was required only for the landing of the foot over bridge and now that there has been a relocation of the same, the land would no longer be required for the purpose of the project, is an incorrect assumption on the part of the petitioners and ought to be rejected. He would further submit that in view of the further directions issued by this Court at the time of hearing to place further particulars of the manner in which the land would be utilized, and the previous stand taken by the Corporation, it is pointed out that after the disposal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2010 seeking a change in the design of the foot over bridge, was clearly rejected by the technical experts of the Corporation, as even with any such relocation in view of the development required to provide infrastructural facilities and to facilitate traffic integration, land having been acquired, and keeping in view the safety of pedestrians, the work has been undertaken. It is incorrect to assume that the work in connection with the foot over bridge is completed. It is only partially complete and that the entire land including Sy.No.15/2 was absolutely necessary for the purpose of traffic integration, as the land allocated for KSRTC Bus Terminal, BMTC Bus Terminal and the Park area are all around the land in Sy.No.15/2. Hence, without including the same, it would not be possible to connect the above terminals. In other words, it is proposed to develop a state of the Art integrated Intermodal Transit Hub facility providing for a smooth interchange between different modes of transport at the station. The total area available for the development is about 25 acres and every part of the land would be utilized for the purpose and the petitioner seeking to claim that the land of the petitioner could be deleted from the project, is therefore untenable. When on the other hand, the Corporation has already submitted proposals to include other facility which may require additional acquisition of land, therefore, would submit that the petition is without merit. He places reliance on the following authorities to submit that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the petition does not merit consideration: