Disposed

Smt Farah Raffi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2024WP/10812/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notification regarding land acquisition for the Bangalore Metro Rail. The court disposed of the petition but directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to conduct a joint survey with all relevant parties to determine the actual land acquired by NHAI utilized for the metro, ensuring correct compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to conduct a joint survey of Survey No. 56/17 with NHAI, KIADB, BMRCL, and petitioners to ascertain the extent of land acquired and determine due compensation.

Smt Farah Raffi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:29053 WP No. 10812 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10812 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT FARAH RAFFI W/O SRI RAFFI BAIG AGED ABOUT 46 YEAWRS

¶8

SRI MOIN ARAFATH S/O SRI RAFFI BAIG AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶9

HIRA RAFFI D/O SRI RAFFI BAIG AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶10

HAYA RAFFI D/O SRI RAFFI BAIG AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.198/1, 'KWAJA MANSION', DAS COMPOUND II BLOCK JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 004

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:29053 WP No. 10812 of 2021

¶19

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU 560 001

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.3/2, ARAVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶22

BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATIONLTD., BMTC COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH.K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3 SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER / ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-N DTD. 12.10.2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:29053 WP No. 10812 of 2021

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶32

The petitioners assert ownership of the land bearing Survey No. 56/17, measuring 1 acre and 11 guntas, including 5 guntas of kharab, situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶33

Respondent No.3 issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire 341 square meters of land in the aforementioned survey number for the benefit of respondent No.4, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL). After conducting a joint measurement, a sketch was prepared indicating that 70.85 square meters out of the 341 square meters were acquired and utilized by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Consequently, a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was published to acquire the remaining 270.15 square meters of land. An award was subsequently passed, determining compensation for the said extent of land, which the petitioner has received.

¶34

The primary contention of the petitioners is that the NHAI had only acquired 1 gunta, and an extent of 341 square meters was utilized by respondent No.4 for the construction of the metro rail.

¶35

The joint measurement was conducted without giving notice to the petitioners; therefore, the sketch at Annexure-R1

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:29053 WP No. 10812 of 2021

¶38

does not bind the petitioners. To resolve the controversy regarding the extent of land acquired by respondent No.3, it would be appropriate to direct a fresh joint survey.

¶39

5. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct a joint survey of Survey No. 56/17 with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Land Records concerned, in the presence of the National Highways Authority of India. This survey is to ascertain the extent of land acquired by the NHAI. If it is found that respondent No.4 has utilized the land notified for acquisition, respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate order to determine the compensation to which the petitioners are legally entitled.

¶43

iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶45

RKA

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:29053 WP No. 10812 of 2021

¶48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SMT FARAH RAFFI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶49

03.09.2024 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER ON FOR BEING SPOKEN TO

¶51

It is submitted that this Court directed the third respondent to conduct the survey with the assistance of concerned ADLR and in the presence of the petitioners, National Highways Authority of India, KIADB and BMRCL and ascertain the area acquired by the NHAI. However, while typing the order dated 24.07.2024 in the operative portion of the order the same is not forthcoming.

¶52

Hence, the paragraph-ii of the order at page-4 is corrected as below:

¶53

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct a joint survey of Survey No. 56/17 with the assistance of the Assistant Director of Land Records concerned, in the presence of the National Highways Authority of India , petitioners, KIADB and BMRCL This survey is to ascertain the extent of land acquired by the NHAI. If it is found that respondent No.4 has utilized the land notified for acquisition, respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate order to determine the compensation to which the petitioners are legally entitled.

¶54

This order shall be read in Conjunction with the order dated 24.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.10812 of 2021.

¶55

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶56

RKA/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Farah Raffi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Farah Raffi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Yashodamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Rekha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Y Srinivas Vs the City Muncipal Council

Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Development Commissioner

The Archbishop of Bangalore Vs State of Karnataka

Anand Kelkar Vs the Authorized Officer, Repco Bank