Allowed

Sri Syed Farooq v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024WP/14917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged an endorsement requiring Phodi/Durasth before release of compensation for a 1 gunta portion acquired for Ring Road formation in Tumakuru. The court held the endorsement unsustainable, quashed it, and directed a survey with the Assistant Director of Land Records to identify the acquired portion for compensation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 30.10.2023 quashed; respondent No.4 directed to conduct survey with Assistant Director of Land Records within two months to identify acquired land for compensation.

Sri Syed Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14917 OF 2024 (LA-UDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SYED FAROOQ S/O SYED, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/At RUKSANA MANZIL, 2^ND CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, P.G. LAYOUT, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BELGUMBA ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO S.L.A.O.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶19

TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 102

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 30^TH OCTOBER, 2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO S.L.A.O., TUMAKURU SUBDIVISION, TUMAKURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-H WITH RESPECT TO PHODE AND DURASTI WORK OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER TO AN EXTENT OF 0.01 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.196/1 OF AMMANIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT; AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 30^th October, 2023 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to get Phodi and Durasth in respect of the subject land; inter alia sought for quashing the Notice dated 17^th May, 2024 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent No.3.

¶27

The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey No.196 (New Survey No.196/1) measuring to an extent of 1.92 guntas situate at

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶29

Ammanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk as per registered Sale Deed dated produced at Annexure-A. It is also stated that the land in question has been gifted in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-B and the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the respondents have initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of formation of Ring Road and the subject land was notified in the name of the vendor of the petitioner to an extent of 1 gunta in Survey No.196/1 of Ammanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. It is further stated that, after purchase of subject land, the petitioner has constructed godown/shed since the petitioner is engaging the business of Exports. It is contention of the petitioner that, as the name of the petitioner was not notified in the preliminary notification, he was not able to file objections opposing the acquisition proceedings. In this connection, the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5547 of 2022, challenging the acquisition proceedings and this Court, by order dated 29^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner in respect of releasing compensation at the earliest.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶31

In furtherance of the same, the petitioner approached the respondent No.4, seeking release of compensation and thereby respondent No.4 has issued the Endorsement dated 30^th October, 2023 (Annexure-H), directing the petitioner to get Phodi and Durasth in respect of the subject land. The respondent No.3 had also issued notice dated 17^th May, 2024 (Annexure-J), directing the petitioner to vacate the acquired portion of land in question. Hence, this writ petition.

¶32

Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4; and Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶33

Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Authorities were well aware about the fact that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the subject land on the pretext that the vendor of the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and that apart, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner as required under Article 300-A of the Constitution of

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶35

India. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 ought not to have issued the impugned Endorsement dated 30^th October, 2023 (Annexure-H), directing the petitioner to get Phodi and Durasth in respect of the land in question as the small bit of 1 gunta has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Ring Road.

¶36

Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 sought to justify the issuance of impugned Endorsement and submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land bearing Survey No.196/2 and not in Survey No.196/1 of Ammanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk as per the Survey report of the revenue authority. Therefore, the Phodi/Durasth of the land in question is necessitated for determination and payment of compensation in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.5547 of 2022. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶37

Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned notice dated 17^th May, 2024 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶39

No.3 and contended that the portion of the land belonging to the petitioner is required for formation of Ring Road and as the respondent No.3 has to complete the acquisition proceedings and to complete the project of formation of Ring Road, it is the duty of the petitioner to vacate the acquired portion of the land in question.

¶40

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the portion of the land belonging to petitioner in 196/1 to an extent of 1 gunta is acquired by the respondent-Authorities for formation of Ring Road. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DEVI vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2020(2) SCC 569, right to property has to be recognized as human right and as such, petitioner herein is entitled for compensation for the acquired land. Having taken note of observation made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5547 of 2022 dated 29^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G), since the small portion of land is acquired by the respondent-Authorities, the respondent No.4, being a revenue authority had to conduct the survey of the land in question to identify the acquired portion of land. In that view of the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:52601 WP NO.14917 OF 2024

¶43

matter, taking into account the fact that, a small portion of land to an extent of 1 gunta is acquired, the reasons assigned in Endorsement dated 30^th October, 2023 (Annexure-H) cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

1. Writ Petition allowed;

¶46

1. Endorsement dated 30^th October, 2023 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed;

¶47

1. Respondent No.4 is directed to conduct survey of land in question with the assistance of the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records for identifying the acquired portion of land to enable the respondent-Authorities for releasing compensation, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶48

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶49

ARK

Sri Syed Farooq v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Farooq 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sumathi Sharada Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Pratesh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri T Srinivasulu Vs the Commissioner

Sri B N Venugopala Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B H Honnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

T.B.R. Boranna Vs State of Karnataka