1. This intra court appeal arises out of a order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1440/2021 by which writ petition preferred by the respondents has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 is the owner of land measuring 0.06 guntas of Sy.No.88/2 situate at Bommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. A notification dated 05.10.2009 was issued notifying the aforesaid land for road widening. The respondent No.1 thereupon agreed to surrender the land in favour of the appellant viz., BBMP and executed a relinquishment deed on 30.01.2015, by which land measuring 448 square meters was relinquished in favour of BBMP under the aforesaid relinquishment deed, which was registered on 03.02.2015. The BBMP was required to issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The respondent No.1 thereupon submitted representations on 17.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 seeking TDR. However, the representations submitted by the respondent No.1 failed to evoke any response. The respondent No.1 thereupon filed a writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 05.04.2022 directed the appellant to issue TDR certificates to the respondent No.1 within three months. It was further directed that if any delay is accrued, the BBMP shall pay costs to the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per week per square meter of the relinquished lands. The liberty was also given to respondent No.1 to seek re-conveyance of the land within eight weeks. The respondent No.1 was further directed to file an affidavit stating that BBMP has been in exclusive possession of the lands and the respondent No.1 shall not interfere with the land in any manner. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that possession of the land in question was never handed to the BBMP. It is further submitted that BBMP has now decided not to widen the road and therefore, they do not need the land in question. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the land in question is in possession of the BBMP and same is shown as road in the development plan.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the land in question was required for the purposes of widening the road therefore a notification dated 05.10.2009 was issued. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of BBMP on 30.01.2015, which was registered on 03.02.2015. BBMP at no point of time, made any grievance that it is not in possession of the land in question. Similarly, at no point of time, BBMP expressed its intention not to widen the road and not to re-convey the land.
6. The respondent No.1 in compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge has filed an affidavit stating that BBMP is in possession of the land in question and he shall not interfere with the same. The BBMP cannot be permitted to utilize the land belonging to the respondent No.1 without payment of compensation. A direction has been issued by the State Government to BBMP to take the land in question in the year 2011. The respondent No.1 has executed a relinquishment deed in favour of BBMP which is in force till today.
7. The learned Single Judge therefore, has rightly directed BBMP to issue TDR certificates to the respondent No.1. We do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
