C. KANTHARAJ Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims as the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No. 50/1A of Nagavara village, Bangalore North Taluk. He is said to have acquired the same by way of a registered deed recording a family partition, dated 23.8.1961. The property is now said to be within the jurisdiction of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Hereinafter referred to as the "BBMP" for brevity). It is stated that on the southern side of the above property, the Outer Ring Road (ORR) has been formed -connecting the road from Hebbal Fly -over to Krishnarajapuram. On the northern side of the property, the Karle Group of companies is said to be developing land measuring about 60 acres and are said to have formed a private road over land bearing Survey No. 59/2, 59/1 and 61/1 and required atleast 5 guntas of land of the petitioner's property, in order to access the Outer Ring Road. It is the petitioner's belief -that as he was not inclined to provide the required area of land, the said Karle Group had brought influence to bear on the BBMP to initiate acquisition proceedings to acquire land for providing a road from Kempapura to the Outer Ring Road. Accordingly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity) dated 13.5.2011 was said to have been issued in that regard.

(2.) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the petition and assert that the BBMP intending to form a 100 feet road connecting the ORR to Kempapura, had even before issuing a preliminary notification had explored the possibility of land owners being persuaded to offer their land voluntarily, in consideration of the issuance of the 'Transferable Development Rights' (TDR) -this had been well received by land owners and there was said to have been a voluntary surrender of land extending over land in seven survey numbers. The petitioner however, is said to have turned down the offer. It is stated that the "petitioner's objections to the acquisition have been considered, even though he was not shown as the exclusive khatedar of the property claimed by him. Hence his contention that he was not afforded a hearing is denied. It is also denied that the land is not required for a public purpose or that there was any unholy nexus with a private developer in the formation of the road.

(3.) I most humbly submit that in view of the above stated facts, it is evident that the Nagavara Lake is under the control of Lake Development Authority and that the Lake Development Authority has entered into an agreement with the Lumbini Garden Limited, and this agreement is for a period 15 years. The Lake Development Authority has also issued a letter stating that the area belonging to it cannot be used for the purpose of road. A true copy of the said letter is herewith produced a Annexure -R3 and hence as per Annexure -R3 this land cannot be considered for the formation of road.