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

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Follow us

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=”http://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

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -