N. PRADEEP GOYAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are knocking at the doors of writ court with the following two prayers:

(2.) After service of notice, the State and its Department of Fire Force have entered appearance through the AGA; the KIADB and its SLAO are represented by their Panel Counsel; the respondent-BMRCL and the respondent-BBMP which is subsequently arrayed as a party vide order dtd. 3/6/2021 are represented by their Panel Advocates. Statement of Objections and additional Statement of Objections have been filed by the respondent-BMRCL after the filing of amended petition. There are certain applications and objections filed thereto. There is a rejoinder filed the petitioners. The main matter itself is being taken up for consideration, so far as the claim for a broader access road is concerned. All contentions as to validity of the acquisition in question are reserved to be urged in W.P No. 38475/2013 as rightly submitted at the Bar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners regardless of the textual prayers in the petition argued that, his clients having lost the land in acquisition are entitled to have a broader access road of 15 meters in terms of the extant Guidelines of BMRCL and therefore the answering respondents are not justified in providing an access road which is less than 12 feet wide; width of the road has something to do with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the their land which adjoins what is acquired. He presses into service the decision of the Apex Court in M/S MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. (P) LTD. vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1979 SCR (2) 641. He banks upon the Spot Inspection Report secured by this court pursuant to intermediary orders. No submissions were made in support of the textual prayers in the petition.