P. Manikyam vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents not to demolish the existing structure of the building of the petitioner without acquiring the same as per law. The case of the petitioner is that he and his brother Srinivas are the absolute owners of Site bearing No. 339, Kuvempu Nagar, Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road totally measuring 9103 sq. ft. The details with regard to title to the property and the manner in which they are in enjoyment of the property has been stated. While the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, a notice dated 24.05.2012 was issued calling upon the petitioner to produce the property documents for the purpose of issue of TDR certificates with the intention of making use of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of widening the two sides of the Mysore Road. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner cannot be utilized without following due process of law to acquire and compensate.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. They have indicated that the lands on either side of the road adjacent to the Sirsi circle to Ring Road was required for the purpose of widening the road. In that regard, the land owners were offered the TDR certificates so as to make use of the land for the purpose of widening the road. In the objection statement, it is further stated that the buildings which have been demolished are after issue of TDR certificates to the owner and further in Para-6, it is indicated that since the petitioner herein is not willing to accept TDR certificates, the respondents would proceed as per law to acquire the land of the petitioner to the extent required for road widening by resorting to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

The said statement of the respondents would clearly indicate that if at all the property belonging to the petitioner is required for the purpose of road widening, the respondents would only resort to use of the property belonging to the petitioner on acquiring the same in accordance with law. In that view, the apprehension of the petitioner as put forth in the petition would stand allayed. Therefore, on taking note of the statement made by the respondents, the petition is disposed of Needless to mention that the respondents would not demolish any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner without resorting to due process of law in the manner as indicated in the objection statement and noticed above.