At, High Court of Karnataka
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
For the Petitioner: K.N. Chandrashekher, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, H.K. Basavaraj, AGA, R3, K. Krishna, R4, P.V. Chandrashekar, Advocates.
(Prayer: This Writ petition is filed Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to measure, sketch and record the said affected shop premises in the presence of the petitioner and pay revised business Premises Re-Establishment allowance and etc.)
R. Devdas J.
1. Though the petition is listed for "Hearing- Interlocutory Application", with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the petition is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The grievance of the petitioner who is an Advocate is that while the respondents sought to acquire certain lands for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Rail Project, the building in which the petitioner was having his office was also notified for the purpose of acquisition. It is contention of the petitioner that the fixation of shifting allowance in particular provided for the tenant is discriminatory in nature and the exact measurement of the office has not been taken into consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Compensation and Resettlement Package (CRP) 2019 at Annexure-F, provision is made at clause VI regarding allowance for loss of business for 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under loss of business to 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 person who do not pay SGST, allowance of Rs.60,000/- is made.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-BMRCL submits that the compensation and allowance are made under the policy as found in the document at Annexure-F. Learned counsel 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.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, this Court finds that the offer made by respondent No.3-BMRCL is fair. 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
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
actually measuring 282 sq. ft., the allowance will accordingly be enhanced, in terms of the policy document. 7. Respondent No.3 shall cause a survey of the office premises of the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner on 10.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m., and proceed further to pass orders as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.