- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6059 OF 2016 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: MR. C. BHOJARAJ AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, R/AT NO.38/Y, 15TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560010 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE.N, HCGP FOR R4; SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD: 10.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 BEARING NO.LAQ/ CR/ 08/ 2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 38 guntas, including 3 guntas of kharab land forming part of land Sy.No.102/1, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same in terms of the deed of sale dated 18.03.1981. That the petitioner had applied for change of land usage to an extent of 27 guntas out of the said land from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purpose, which was accorded on 06.07.1993. That there - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 was some dispute resulting in one Smt.Muninarasamma filing a suit in O.S.No.8141/2009 and the said suit was dismissed upon a memo filed confirming the deed of sale executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thus has been in settled possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and has been paying the tax regularly. 2. The respondent had initiated acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 177 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, notifying various lands for acquisition for the purpose of widening of the road from Rajarajeshwarinagar to Banashankari 6th stage. A portion measuring 1671 sq. ft. of the land belonging to the petitioner was notified at Sl.No.33. However, though the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said land, his name was not reflected, but the name of his wife was notified. A final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894, was issued in which the land of the petitioner was shown at - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 Sl.No.33, on learning about the same, the petitioner made a representation on 26.04.2014 contending that his land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his wife to look after the construction of the building. 3. The petitioner also pointed out that an extent of 09 guntas of land has been utilized by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for the purpose of the formation of road. A survey by, a private surveyor was requested to find out the actual extent of the land utilized by the respondent-BBMP for the formation of the said road. That in the said private survey, it was found that respondent-BBMP has utilized 9482 Sq. ft of the land belonging to the petitioner instead of 1671 Sq. ft as notified in the notification. As such, the petitioner requested for payment of compensation to the extent of said 9482 Sq. ft of the land. The petitioner did not receive the compensation to the extent of land acquired. However, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent in the month of December-2015 informing that the award in respect of 1671 Sq. ft of land has been passed and the same had been deposited before the Reference Court. That the petitioner was not even issued with any notice prior to the passing of the award. Thus, the acquisition and passing of the award by the respondent-BBMP is void ab-initio and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, since the award was not passed in the manner known to law. 4. That the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into effect on 01.01.2014. It is further contended that the petitioner would be willing to forgo the land which is actually utilized by the respondent provided he be paid compensation in respect of the actual extent of land which is acquired, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 namely 9482 Sq. ft instead of 1671.02 Sq. ft as claimed by the respondent-BBMP. 5. This Court by order dated 20.07.2022, after hearing the matter, had appointed Assistant Director of Land Records to conduct the survey and to submit a report. In that it was specifically directed (i) to identify the road as existing prior to the notification, (ii) to demarcate boundaries thereof, (iii) to identify the extent of road widening as stated in the acquisition notification, (iv) to demarcate the boundaries thereof and (v) to identify the excess land utilized for formation of road and to demarcate the boundaries thereof. 6. Accordingly a memo dated 05.09.2022 is filed by the Additional Government Advocate enclosing the report dated 12.08.2022 of the Assistant Director of Land Records along with annexures. 7. In the said report ADLR had identified and delineated portions of land of the petitioner that had been utilized for formation/expansion of road. The said portions - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 are marked and shown in Block Nos.I, II, III and IV in the sketch enclosed to the report. 8. The petitioner was called upon to produce the village map and documents of title under which he claimed to have purchased the subject property and also to submit the dates on which the portions of his property shown in block Nos.I, II, III and IV in the sketch produced by ADLR acquired/utilized by the respondent authorities. 9. In response, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 30.01.2025 reiterating the contents of the report of ADLR. It is deposed that though the respondent-BBMP claimed to have utilized only an extent of 1671 sq. ft., as notified, in fact it has utilized more than 15344 sq. ft. That even as evident from the report of the ADLR, respondent-BBMP has unauthorisedly utilized the property of the petitioner without following the due process of law. The Google images of the subject property are enclosed along with the said affidavit. Referring to the first of the images, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 same pertains to the year 2012, wherein the property of the petitioner is shown in the triangular portion and the road surrounding the said property has been consistently widened by the respondent-BBMP year after year, reducing the actual extent of the land held by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is therefore entitled for the compensation to the actual extent of land utilized by the BBMP which was not acquired in the manner known to law. 10. In response, learned counsel Shri K B Mounesh Kumar, submits that although the respondent-BBMP has utilized the land to an extent of 1671 sq. ft which is shown even in the report of the ADLR marked in block No."I", he submits that the other portions marked in block Nos."II, III and IV", in the sketch of the ADLR have not been utilized by the respondent-BBMP and that the said roads were in existence even prior to respondent-BBMP taking over the same within its jurisdiction. Hence, he submits that respondent-BBMP is not liable to pay the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 compensation for remaining extent of land allegedly utilized. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 11. Heard. Perused the records. 12. The dispute involved in this matter is with regard to the actual extent of land belonging to the petitioner claimed to have been utilized by the respondent-BBMP for the purpose of formation of road which according to the petitioner is in excess of the extent shown in the notification. 13. The contention of the respondent-BBMP on the other hand is that except the portion measuring 1671 sq. ft. shown in block No."I" of the sketch produced by the ADLR, other portions shown in block Nos.II, III and IV had been utilized for widening the roads on the three sides of the property of the petitioner, which was in existence much prior to the respondent-BBMP taking over the said roads. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 14. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, necessary to refer to the description of the property purchased by the petitioner as found in the deed of sale dated 18.03.1981 produced by the petitioner along with an application dated 21.01.2025. The description of the property as shown in the schedule to the said deed of sale is as under: All that piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.102/1 of Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Land belongs to Rajanna, West by : Oni North by : Land belongs to Rudrappa South by : Oni. 15. A confirmation deed has also been executed, the description mentioned in the said confirmation deed also reads as under: All that piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.102/1 of Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Land belongs to Rajanna, West by : Oni North by : Land belongs to Rudrappa South by : Originally Oni. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 16. Perusal of the boundaries in the schedule to the deeds referred to above would indicate existence of roads on the western as well as on the southern side of the property of the petitioner which is referred to as "Oni". The ADLR report, which was filed along with memo dated 05.09.2022 would indicate that an extent of land measuring 1671 sq. ft and another extent of 4378 sq. ft. marked in block Nos."I" and "II" respectively, have been utilized on the eastern side of the property of the petitioner and further on the northern side an extent of 3690 sq. ft and the southern side 5605 sq. ft have been utilized, which portions are marked as block Nos."III and IV" respectively. 17. The petitioner does not seem to be having any objection with regard to utilization of portion of property on the eastern side marked as block No."I". However, objection is only with regard to an extent of 4378 Sq. ft marked in block No."II" and extent of 3690 Sq.ft marked - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 in block No."III" and an extent of 5605 sq. ft marked in block No."IV". 18. Necessary to note that existence of "Oni" on western and southern side of the property of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondent-BBMP. The ADLR report also refers to the existence of "Bandi raste" which is referred to in the deed of sale and in the confirmation deed. 19. In the sketch and the material information furnished by the respondent-BBMP, though it has admitted acquisition of 1671 Sq.ft of land marked in block No."I", has however denied the remaining extent of the land marked in block Nos."II, III and IV". 20. It appears that it is the said roads referred to as "Oni" in the title deeds of the petitioner and as "Bandi raste" in the report of the ADLR, which seemed to have been widened and expanded over a period of time as it seen in the Google images. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 21. "Oni/Bandi daari" means a "cart road". It is of a common knowledge that generally width of such cart road would be around 10-15 feet. If the width of the "oni/bandi daari" referred to in the deed of sale and admitted by the respondent-BBMP remains as it is, the claim of the petitioner may not sustain. However, on the contrary if the width of the same is widened the result would be that the claim of the petitioner requires consideration. It also requires ascertaining the dates/years during which such widening if any that has taken place and also requires ascertaining the authority which has undertaken the process of widening, if any. 22. Therefore the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter is required to be ascertained by the BBMP as to whether "oni/Bandi daari" has remained as it is till today or the same has been widened and converted into broad motorable road. If the "Bandi daari" is widened to accommodate the present traffic outflow, it goes without saying the same could not have been done without - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 utilization of the property of the petitioner. It may be that respondent-BBMP might not have initiated the process of acquiring the said land, but the disputed fact which remains to be ascertained is the actual extent of land of petitioner utilized by the respondent-BBMP. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that the notification dated 09.11.2011, at Sl.No.33 specifically refers to the extent of land which is acquired by the respondent-BBMP is 1671.02 Sq. ft. However, perusal of the said notification would not indicate the requirement of land for expansion of "oni/Bandi daari" which is admittedly situated on the eastern and southern side of the property of the petitioner. The sketch produced by the respondent-BBMP only indicates an extent of 1671.02 sq. ft having been utilized on the eastern point of the property of the petitioner (which is in a triangle shape). - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 24. Since the survey report and sketch produced by the ADLR indicates utilization of the land of the petitioner described in block Nos."I, II, III, IV" on all three sides of the property belonging to the petitioner and the same not being discernible from the notification, this Court is of the view that the respondent-BBMP be directed to consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the report of the ADLR, notification and the actual existence of the "oni/Bandi Daari" and its present width and thereafter identify as to the actual extent of the land of the petitioner utilized for widening of these roads, if any. 25. 25. Since this disputed question of fact cannot be ascertained under Article 226 of the Constitution in this writ petition, the petitioner is relegated to the Land Acquisition Officer who has issued the notification and acquired the land mentioned therein, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual extent of the land of the petitioner that has been utilized. Accordingly the following: - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 ORDER. (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer of respondent-BBMP shall hold an inquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioner of respondent-BBMP having utilized the land on all the three sides of the property of the petitioner as above. (iii) While doing so, the respondent-SLAO shall take into consideration survey report, Mahazar and sketch, which are prepared and submitted before this Court by ADLR vide memo dated 05.09.2022. (iv) The petitioner is at liberty to furnish such other material and documents, as may be required in justification of his claim of his land having been utilized by the respondent-BBMP in excess of what has been notified. (v) The respondent-SLAO shall pass detailed reasoned order referring to the material made available before this Court and such order be passed within a outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:7186 WP No. 6059 of 2016 (vi) If SLAO finds the land as being claimed by the petitioner has been utilized, the petitioner would be entitled for compensation and SLAO shall determine the compensation in accordance with applicable law. (vii) If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order that may be passed by the SLAO, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be available under law. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and same shall stand consigned to records. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ASN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1