VEERAPPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner's property bearing BBMP No. 64/1 situated at Hosur road, Madiwala, Ward No. 66, Bangalore -68, measuring East -26 feet, West -20 feet, North -11 feet and South -10 feet, was said to have been acquired under a Gift Deed dated 29.12.2004 executed by one K. Vinod Kumar, S/o. A.D. Kumaraswamy Modaliar, which was duly registered. The petitioner has been in possession of the same from the date of gift. It is stated that there was a typographical error in describing the boundary and measurement of the property in the Gift Deed and therefore a rectification deed was executed by the donor K Vinod Kumar on 16.08.2010 which is also registered with the jurisdictional Sub -Registrar. The katha has been made out in the name of the petitioner. The katha extract dated 28.11.2012 and the certificate are produced. It is stated that the respondents No. 2 to 4 representing the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike have notified several properties within Ward No. 151 and Ward No. 172 of Madiwala, Hosur road for the purpose of widening the road from Central Silk Board Junction to MK Factory Junction and there are totally 47 private properties which have been notified for acquisition purpose and the road is to be widened by 30 metres from the centre namely, 15 metres either side. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's property is not within the scope of such widening as it falls beyond 15 metres from the middle of the road. However, the petitioner is under threat of dispossession. As the respondents are going ahead with widening the road including the petitioner's property when the same has never been notified nor is the subject matter of the acquisition and it is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court. The respondents were resisted the petition having insisted that the same has been notified in the name of Vinod Kumar, the admitted donor of the petitioner who is said to have donated a portion of the property belonging to him under the said Gift Deed and the final declaration under Section 6(1) has indicated CTS Nos. 216 and 217 at Sl. Nos. 27 and 28 an extent of 7.47 sq. metres in CTS No. 216 and an extent of 10.07 sq. metres in CTS No. 217 have been notified. However, it is not shown in the name of the petitioner. It has been verified and also reiterated in the surveyors' report pursuant to the appointment of a surveyor by this Court who was called upon to conduct the survey and report where the petitioner's land which is under threat as stated by the petitioner would be within the scope of the widening of the Hosur main road and within 15 metres from the middle of Hosur main road as it was proposed to be widened. The survey report however indicates that it is within the scope of widening of the main road. To this report filed by the surveyor alongwith an affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of the B.B.M.P., respondent No. 4 is opposed by filing the statement of objections by the petitioner to point out that there is serious discrepancy in the survey report that is now filed in comparison to the survey sketch that is filed alongwith the statement of objections. On a plain comparison of survey sketch and the survey report which is filed before the court it is evident that the item No. 27 which is shown in the notification is clearly half the main road and may not be within 15 metres from the middle of the main road. This possession is however candidly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to state that the petitioner's land which may be part of Vinod Kumar's land as notified is certainly half the main road, but on a cross road which joins the main road and as a matter of practice it would be necessary to widen the cross road as well when the widening of the main road is taken up for case of traffic flow and as a necessity that follows the widening of the main road and this is generally a practice undertaken by the respondents in all such cases and therefore it is now shown that the land of the petitioner also would come in for widening though half the main road. This candid admission of the learned counsel for the respondent would certainly justify the present writ petition. In that though the land of the petitioner has not been notified for acquisition it is only by virtue of the fact that the property is on a cross road and since the main road is being widened, as a follower there is a possible widening of the cross road as well and petitioner's property would necessarily have to be acquired. However, as there is no notification in respect of the petitioner's property though shown as part of Vinod Kumar's property it would stand to reason that the respondents can acquire the petitioner's land and utilize the same for widening of the cross road in accordance with law. Since the petitioner's name is not reflected in the notification proposing the acquisition of the properties it would be necessary for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law and pending such proceedings the respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner's land. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents shall proceed against the petitioner's property if at all only in accordance with law and accordingly, the petition stands allowed.