B. VINOD Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to be a land loser in the acquisition in question has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the 1st respondent from disbursing the compensation payable in respect of the Petition lands inter alia bearing No.34A and 34B in Sy.No.72 of Vijinapur Village, Bangalore East Taluka, till after civil suit in OS.No.68/2017, pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru, is disposed off. He has also sought for a Writ of Mandamus to the 1st respondent-SLAO of KIADB to consider his representation dated 25.09.2017 vide Annexure-Q.

(2.) After service of notice, the 1st respondent-SLAO has entered appearance through its Panel Counsel Sri.P.V. Chandrashekar; the private respondent Nos.2 to 4 have entered appearance through their counsel Mr.K.Arunkumar who has filed the Statement of Objections along with several documents, resisting the Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner made passionate submissions that the petitioner is the absolute owner inter alia of Site Nos.34A and 34B from which Site No.11 is carved out; this Site No.11 happens to be the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.68/2017 which was initially for bear injunction decree and which now is being converted into a declaratory suit; if the 1st respondent releases the compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, petitioner would be put to manifest injunction and a huge loss and therefore, his interest should be protected by restraining the 1st respondent from making the payment of compensation.