Man Returns Home To Find Bengaluru Metro Pillar In His Yard!

For more than a year now, the Namma Metro is running between Peenya and Sampige Road (Reach III of Phase 1). But one of the pillars on this stretch (pillar 282) is on a site that has not been acquired from the land owner.

A doctor from Bengaluru who works in the USA had the biggest surprise of his life returning home, as he found a huge Namma Metro pillar on his residential plot

The BDA and Namma Metro pointed fingers at each other. The doctor's site which was originally 50x80 sq ft has reduced to 15x80 sq ft and become utterly unusable. Dr OL Prabhu, 59, Bengalurean who practises medicine in San Diego, California, US, approached the HC against the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation (BMRCL) and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). His claim is that BMRCL has illegally taken possession of his property and put up a construction, 'Metro Pillar No 282' on it. He was neither kept in the know that his property was required for the construction nor was he paid any compensation.

Prabhu had purchased the site, measuring 50x80 ft, from the BDA under a sale deed on March 9, 2000. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had isued a khatha in his name and he has been paying taxes on the property since then. When the Namma Metro work started on Chord Road near Iskcon temple, BMRCL realised that it needed part of Prabhu's site. But it approached the BDA seeking permission. "The BDA unknowingly indicated that it was a vacant land on which BMRCL was at liberty to erect the pier and it was accordingly erected," according to Prabhu's petition before the HC.

Coming home to shock

Prabhu, who was abroad during this period came home to find the construction on his property. He approached the BDA seeking clarification. BDA, realising its mistake, took BMRCL into confidence. But there was no remedy forthcoming from them. Prabhu had no option but to approach the HC. The BMRCL counsel told the HC that it was "left with no alternative but to intitiate acquisition proceedings as a matter of formality to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner." BMRCL tentatively suggested that the compensation would be a sum of Rs 5,000 per sqft and this would be subject to the determination by a final award. But Prabhu's advocate told the court that the government guidance value itself for the said site was Rs 9,000 per sqft.

The HC held that "the exact amount of compensation payable to the petitioner would be determined in due course. Insofar as the tentatively admitted amount of Rs 5,000 per square foot, shall be paid over to the petitioner forthwith."

This amount would be paid within four weeks, Justice Anand Byrareddy ordered on February 15. The HC said that the question of enhanced compensation was left open. The proceedings for determination of compensation would also be initiated within four weeks, the court ordered. The site was 50x80 ft, but now it is only 15x80 ft.