Sri. C.B. Narasimhaiah vs State of Karnataka, Tumkur Urban Development Authority and Tumkur City Corporation

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the demand notice dated 25.02.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 for payment of difference cost towards Site No. 1425. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to execute lease-cum-sale deed in respect of Site No. 1425 since the petitioner has already paid the sital value at Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. The facts in brief are that certain lands belonging to the petitioner and other persons within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Railway Over Bridge in Tumkur. In that regard, insofar as the utilization of the said property, the process of acquisition has been undertaken and the land owners have been compensated. The land owners also had the opportunity of seeking for enhancement of compensation and the petitioner is also stated to have filed an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Notwithstanding the compensation which was paid, the City Municipal Council had taken a decision to provide an alternate house site each to the petitioner and such other persons who had lost the lands only as an incentive. While doing so, the City Municipal Council had requested the Tumkur Urban Development Authority (for short the ''TUDA'') to allot sites in favour of such land losers. It is in that context, the site bearing No. 1425 measuring 265.90 sq.ft. was allotted in favour of the petitioner and certain other sites were allotted to the other land losers.

At the first instance while making the allotment, the authorities had fixed the rate at Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. However, when the approval of the Government for the action had been sought as per the statutory provisions, the Government was of view that the rate fixed at Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. would not be justified and the appropriate rate to be fixed would be at Rs. 300/- sq.ft. Pursuant to such orders passed by the Government on 30.09.2009, the respondents have issued the communication to the petitioner calling upon the him to pay the difference amount and have the transaction completed. It is in that context, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the communication would contend that the respondents were not justified in that regard. It is the case of the learned counsel that the petitioner is a land looser and such land had been lost by the petitioner in the heart of the city, while the alternate site is being allotted in a different location and therefore, the rate fixed by the TUDA at the first instance at Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. is justified and the same did not call for enhancement. It is her case that when initial demand of Rs. 5,17,016/- at the rate of Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. was made, the entire payment has been made and there was an obligation on the respondents to execute the lease-cum-sale deed and complete the transaction. It is contended by the learned counsel that the present demand made at Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. is without basis whatsoever. Therefore the action of the respondents is not justified and the communication dated 25.02.2011 should be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to execute the lease-cum-sale deed by accepting the amount which has already been paid.

Learned counsel for statutory respondents while referring to the objection statement filed by respondent No. 2 would contend that the respondents though did not have an obligation to allot an alternate site, the same was considered on humanitarian grounds and the allotment was made. At the first instance itself, the TUDA had noticed that the price to be fixed would be at Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. but had reduced it by 50%. This has been noticed by the Government and the Government while granting approval was of the view such reduction is not justified. Therefore, an appropriate order has been passed and the respondents in any event would convey the site in favour of the petitioner if the balance amount as demanded is paid by the petitioner. It is therefore contended that the action of the respondents is justified.

In the light of the rival contentions, the only question for consideration is as to whether the respondents are justified in making the additional demand as depicted in the communication dated 25.02.2011. In fact all other aspects of the matter are not in dispute between the parties and the respondents are still contending that the site allotted in favour of the petitioner would be conveyed to him if the difference amount is paid by the petitioner. Hence, to consider as to whether the respondents are justified in making demand at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq.ft., a perusal of the Annexures produced along with the objection statement which has led to the decision would indicate that at the first instance, the TUDA had taken a decision to allot the sites of different dimensions to eight persons who had lost their lands for a public purpose. While doing so, the decision was that the allotment of the site would be on payment of price at Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. Though such decision was based on a resolution passed by the TUDA on 24.02.2007, a subsequent resolution dated 24.05.2007 was passed whereby the price fixed was reduced by 50%. Thereafter the decision taken by the TUDA had been sent to the Government for its approval. The Government having taken note of all these aspects of the matter and having considered that the allotment of the sites could be approved, however decided that the price fixed should be at Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. and has proceeded to pass order dated 30.09.2009. The said proceedings would indicate that the Government after application of mind to all facts and circumstances has arrived at the conclusion that the price of property is to be fixed at Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. In my opinion, there is no arbitrariness indicated in the said decision. Furthermore, what is also to be noticed is that the petitioner and other land losers have been granted compensation in accordance with law and they also have the option of seeking enhancement of compensation. The present allotment of the site is an incentive and that too the reasonable price at Rs. 300/- sq.ft. has been fixed. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned demand dated 25.02.2011 does not call for interference. The petitioner shall therefore deposit the difference amount of Rs. 3,41,309/- within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall execute the necessary documents and put the petitioner in possession of the Site No. 1425 which is allotted in his favour within two weeks from the date on which the deposit is made.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.