KUTTETHUR GURURAJACHAR CHARITIES BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE Vs. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ENGINEERING SECTION (ROAD WIDENING) AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that they are the owners in possession of the property bearing No. 29 (Old No. 7), High Grounds, Cresent Road, Bangalore, premises known as Gururaja Kalyana Mantap. That the respondent -Corporation without any authority or notice etc., demolished the compound wall of his property and encroached 2,406 square feet which is almost 10% of the schedule property. No compensation was paid. No redressal was made. Sufficient representations were made to them. The Corporation issued an endorsement dated 27 -11 -2010 stating that they have not utilized the property in question for road widening. However, the fact is that the said property was utilized and presently it is occupied by public road. The respondent -Corporation has filed a memo in the court today to the following effect: - - In the above matter the Commissioner -BBMP has decided to issue TDR Certificate for having utilized the portion of the land belonging to the Petitioner for purpose of road widening the Hare Krishna Road and so also reasonable damages. The copy of the Note Sheet is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court. This memo may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity. In the note sheet enclosed along with the memo the Commissioner has stated that other than the TDR adequate compensation also will be paid.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other than issuing of the TDR Certificate, certainly the respondents would have to compensate the petitioner for having demolished his compound wall. That no notice was given to him when the wall was demolished. Therefore he pleads that the respondent be directed to rebuild the compound wall. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -Corporation submits that rather than directing the Corporation to re -build the wall they are willing to pay the cost of such construction. Both counsels submit that the estimated cost of the construction of the compound wall would be Rs. 1,40,000/ -. Firstly there was no notice of the demolition or acquisition of the property. Secondly even after accepting the TDR Certificate the petitioner would still have to put up the compound wall. Hence it would only be just and necessary that the Corporation should make good the loss sustained by the petitioner. Consequently the petition is disposed off with the following order: - -