SRI I MANOHAR RAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the absolute owners of five residential sites bearing Nos.11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 formed in Sy.No.116/1 of Kariyannanapalya, Kacharkanahalli Village in Bengaluru North Taluk admeasuring 1117.37 sq. mtrs., which has been acquired by the BDA vide preliminary notification dated 27.06.1978 followed by final declaration dated 09.01.1985 published in the Gazettee on 14.03.1985. As no award was passed by the BDA, petitioners were constrained to file before this Court seeking a direction to the BDA to pass an award in respect of sites acquired and pay compensation. Writ petitions were allowed on 25.05.2011 issuing a direction to the BDA to pass an award. It is useful to extract the observations made in paragraph 9 of the said order, which reads as under:

(2.) Though this order was passed on 25.05.2011 and although this Court made it clear in paragraph 11 of the order that entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, BDA did not take any prompt steps to pass award and pay compensation to the petitioners. It is only on 27.12.2013, BDA passed an award determining the compensation and thereafter, notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the petitioners which was served on the petitioners on 01.03.2014.

(3.) After receipt of notice, petitioners, having obtained the certified copy of the award, have filed the present writ petitions on 07.04.2014 challenging the award and seeking a writ of mandamus against the BDA and the Additional Land Acquisition Officer - respondents 2 & 3 herein respectively to pass an award under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act (for short, 'the New Act') contending inter alia that award has been indeed passed by the BDA after the New Act came into force by antedating the same. They have also contended that determination of compensation has been made erroneously and arbitrarily, inasmuch as compensation was required to be paid in respect of sites acquired by valuing them on square feet basis and not treating them as agricultural lands. They have also contended that the award has been passed after inordinate delay of nearly 35 years by determining compensation as obtained on the date of issuance of preliminary notification in the year 1978 (27.06.1978). It is thus contended that compensation now determined is highly unrealistic and illusory.