LIBERTY MOTORS, NO. 42/2, TUMKUR ROAD, OPPOSITE PEENYA BUS STOP, BANGALORE - 560058, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. JOHN BAPTIST SERRAO) Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB 3RD FLOOR, KHENEY BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE AND T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, is considered for final disposal, having regard to the facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Proprietor and is said to have acquired land on rent bearing Sy. No. 42/2 of Peenya Village, Tumkur Road, Bangalore from its owner under a lease deed dated 13.08.1995 with permission to construct a building to run his business as a service showroom for two wheelers, in the name and style of "Liberty Motors" and accordingly, has established the same. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 1 had issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), wherein the premises under the occupation of the petitioner is also shown as required for the purpose of establishing the Metro Rail by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, represented by the second respondent. The petitioner had filed his objection. Notwithstanding the same, a notification under Section 28(3) of the Act was issued and there was a demand on the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises. The petitioner had provided all the necessary documents pertaining to the property and under a rehabilitation scheme in respect of the tenants occupying premises which were acquired for the purpose, were provided compensation. This was as per notification dated 16.10.2009. The petitioner however inadvertently had committed a mistake in indicating the property number as Sy. No. 42/1 instead of 42/2 in the lease deed dated 20.04.2000, which was a subsequent lease deed. Though in one place such an error has occurred, elsewhere in the deed, it is correctly indicated as 42/2. This has become a source of trouble for the petitioner, as he has been denied compensation, that he would be entitled to under the said scheme, and has led to the petitioner approaching this Court since there is a controversy as regards the petitioner's claim, as evidenced by the endorsement issued by the second respondent - Corporation at Annexure -"H". In view of the several documents produced by the petitioner evidencing the fact that he was in continued occupation of the premises in question, right from the year 1995 and that there was no other rival claimant in respect of the same, the petitioner's claim appears to be genuine and it is for the respondent to take a pragmatic view insofar as the error contained in the lease agreement is concerned. Therefore, the representation as well as all the relevant documents already having been submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and release the sanctioned rehabilitation compensation if he is otherwise entitled to the same, in accordance with law. This exercise the respondent shall complete as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.