RATHNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners claim that one K. Vasudeva Rao is said to have died on 12.06.2007, leaving behind the petitioners who are his widow and children. During his lifetime, K. Vasudeva Rao is said to have purchased a house property at T. Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, under two different registered sale deeds dated 9.3.1953 and 30.11.1953 from one Muniswamappa, S/o. Bajjappa. The properties were contiguous to each other forming part of land bearing Sy.No.13/3 situated at T. Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.

(3.) The respondents having entered appearance in this petition, pleadings have been completed. In the course of the proceedings, an application in I.A.1/2012 dated 7.6.2012 was filed by the petitioners questioning the claim of BMRCL that the petitioners were not the owners of the entire extent of 178.05 sq.mts. which was the subject matter of acquisition, as there was a road existing in respect of which the compensation could not be paid to the petitioners. If that is excluded, compensation could be paid only in respect of 166.67 sq.mts. It is that controversy on the basis of which the petitioners had sought a direction to pay the compensation in respect of the entire extent of 178.05 sq.mts., on the petitioners handing over the possession of the same to BMRCL. Incidentally, it was also highlighted that the 1 gunta of land which was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Authority Act, was also in the possession of the petitioners and that unless the possession of the same was given up, the project would come to a halt and hence, during the course of the hearing on I.A.1/2012, it was felt that as the matter would have to be adjudicated and having regard to the urgency pleaded, the following order was passed, dated 10.09.2012: