People surrendering their land for road-widening in Bengaluru North’s Bidarahalli hobli must be issued Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in three months, the high court has directed the BBMP.
“If the delay is brooked, the BBMP shall pay the cost to the petitioners at the rate of Rs 1,000 per week per square metre of relinquished lands, in addition to risking contempt action,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said in his order.
The petitioners have been asked to file with the High Court registry and with the BBMP an affidavit of Rs 100 non-judicial stamp paper to the effect that the BBMP has been in the exclusive possession of subject lands and that they or anyone claiming under them will not interfere with the same in any circumstance nor they will claim any compensation or damages or return of the lands.
The petitioners had approached the high court seeking direction to the BBMP for issuance of TDR in respect of lands relinquished, after the letter of the state government granting permission in 2011. The lands figured in the Revised Master Plan as required for the public purposes, road widening and the relinquishment were done more than five years ago. The petitioners stated that they have given up the possession simultaneously with the execution and registration of relinquishment deeds and some have dismantled the structures that existed on the lands.
The BBMP and the state government contended that the lands are no longer required and that the same will be returned to the land owners. However, the court noted that with the execution of registered relinquishment deeds, the petitioners lost the ownership of the lands and the BBMP gained the same in accordance with the statutory scheme. The court also said that not utilising the lands is a poor justification for denying TDR.
“If the contention of the BBMP is accepted, petitioners who have lost their lands would not get either the compensation or the TDR and thus the action of the BBMP would amount to forfeiting private property without authorisation of law and therefore, is violative of constitutional mandate enacted in Article 300A,” the court said.
The court termed the contention of the BBMP that it would re-convey the lands to its owners as ‘thoroughly unjustified and unconscionable’. “Years have lapsed since these lands have been surrendered. Thus, a classic case is made out by the petitioners for invoking promissory estoppel as well. There is a choate cause of action for the grant of relief,” the court said.
Watch the latest DH Videos here: