Karnataka HC: Appropriate Compensation have been awarded by Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited for acquisition of an Advocate’s Office for Metro Rail Project at Bangalore

Must Read

New Zealand Court Convicts Samoan Chief for Human Trafficking and Slavery

Joseph Auga Matamata is a New Zealand based Samoan chief. The 65-year-old was found guilty by the High Court,...

Congress Whip in Rajasthan Moves to Supreme Court Against Rajasthan High Court Order

Mahesh Joshi, Chief Whip of the Congress Rajasthan legislative assembly, has moved the SC. This move was in response...

Calcutta High Court Passes Judgment to Assert Safety of Children Near COVID Centre

A shelter home for children, Subhayan Home, is located near the new COVID center. This  decision of the authority...

The writ petition was filed before the High court of Karnataka under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India by Petitioner/Advocate praying to direct the respondent/State of Karnataka to measure, sketch and record the shop premises acquired for the purpose of construction of Metro rail project in the presence of the petitioner and pay revised business Premises re-establishment allowance etc was disposed of.

The petitioner who is an Advocate had an office, where the land was marked for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Rail Project, and the same was notified for acquisition. The Petitioner prayed for the measure, sketch and record the shop premises acquired for the purpose of construction of the Metro rail project in the presence of the petitioner and pay revised business Premises re-establishment allowance.

Arguments

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Compensation and Resettlement Package (CRP) 2019, provision is made at clause VI regarding allowance for loss of business for the tenant. While drawing the attention of this court to the particular provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said package and policy of respondent No.3 – BMRCL, a different set of provision in assessing the allowance has been made to persons who pay GST and another provision is made to persons who do not pay GST, like petitioner. Under the loss of business to the tenant, where the average payment of SGST is up to Rs.5,000/- p.m., allowance of Rs.85,000/- is made. Where the SGST is between Rs.5001/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m., allowance of Rs.1,70,000/- is made. Similarly, for loss of business where SGST is paid above Rs.15,001/- p.m., allowance of Rs.2,25,000/- is made. Whereas, for the person who does not pay SGST, allowance of Rs.60,000/- is made.”

“Learned counsel for respondent No.3-BMRC submits that even though an Advocate cannot claim to be doing business, the respondents have considered the aspect that the petitioner is also required to shift his office and therefore the same benefit that is being given to a commercial establishment has been given to the petitioner. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner has accepted the allowance paid by the respondent No.3, though under protest. Learned counsel further submits that on the aspect of proper measurement, the petitioner, as well as respondent No.3, may be permitted to hold a joint survey and if it is found that the assertion made by the petitioner herein is correct, the allowance will accordingly be enhanced, in terms of the policy.”

Decision of the Court

Having heard both the parties, the Court finds that the offer made by respondent No.3 -BMRCL was appropriate. An allowance of Rs. 60,000/- has been made for the loss of business and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded for the purpose of shifting the office. Further, on the aspect of proper measurement, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has fairly submitted that a joint survey will be conducted and if it is found that the office of the petitioner was actually measuring 282 sq. ft., the allowance will accordingly be enhanced, in terms of the policy document. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

[googlepdf url=”https://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/metro-rail-project-case_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” ]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Zealand Court Convicts Samoan Chief for Human Trafficking and Slavery

Joseph Auga Matamata is a New Zealand based Samoan chief. The 65-year-old was found guilty by the High Court,...

Congress Whip in Rajasthan Moves to Supreme Court Against Rajasthan High Court Order

Mahesh Joshi, Chief Whip of the Congress Rajasthan legislative assembly, has moved the SC. This move was in response to the decision of the...

Calcutta High Court Passes Judgment to Assert Safety of Children Near COVID Centre

A shelter home for children, Subhayan Home, is located near the new COVID center. This  decision of the authority of locating its new COVID...

Internship Opportunity for law students with law firm Kay Legal & Associates

LLP (Virtual Internship) - 28 Days. Joining is on immediate basis for 2 interns. Candidate with basic knowledge in Corporate Field can apply only. Interested candidates...

Job Opportunity at Sagar Chandra & Associates, Delhi

Practice Area: Intellectual Property Rights Position: Associate (IPR Litigation) PQE: 0 - 1 year Location: B-18, Lower Ground Floor, Soami Nagar, New Delhi - 110017. How to Apply: Interested...

More Articles Like This