Dismissed

Mr Chunna Mohammad Rahamathulla v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024WP/2092/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two clubbed writ petitions challenging the determination of property title by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The court held that petitioners lacked proof of title and directed the officer to pass the award in favor of the claimant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; respondent No.2 directed to pass award under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act in favor of respondent No.3.

Mr Chunna Mohammad Rahamathulla Vs Karnataka Industrial… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 2092 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7247 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶9

IN WP NO. 2092/2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. CHUNNA MOHAMMAD RAHAMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SMT. KHATHOON BI, RESIDING AT NO.9, E STREET,

¶12

LUBHIYA MASJID STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. CHUNNA ABDUL KHUDDUS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF SHRI. C ABDUL RASHEED AND SMT. KHATOON BI, R/AT NO.1, K NO.3RD STREET, KALIAMMA KOIL STREET, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶19

(A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶21

NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶22

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (2) KIADB, METRO, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

SMT. YASMIN RAFI AHMED, W/O RAFI AHMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1240, 15TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R-2 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/03/2022 MADE IN NO. KIADB/METRO/LA/NG- R6-UGP49/2022-23 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶28

IN WP NO. 7247/2023

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SMT. YASMIN RAFI AHMED, W/O RAFI AHMED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.1240, 15TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH, BANERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶35

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶36

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO RAIL PROJECT), 1ST FLOOR, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO PASS AWARD IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING ID NO. NG-R6-UG-P49 PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO. 3, OLD PID NO. 964/140/3, TO AN EXTENT OF 465.82 SQ.METERS, SITUATED AT NAGAWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRESENTLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF BBM WARD NO. 24 BENGALURU, CONSIDERING CONSENT AWARDS PASSED IN RESPECT OF IMMEDIATE ABUTTING LANDS AND ETC.,

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Both Writ Petitions pertain to the property situated in Sy.No.140/2, Nagawara, Bengaluru North Taluk. Hence, both the writ petitions are clubbed together and heard.

¶44

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in WP No.2092/2023.

¶45

Certain lands in Sy.No.140/2, Nagawara, Bengaluru North Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Rail

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶47

Corporation Limited (for short 'BMRCL'). Respondent No.3 claimed that she is the owner of land measuring about 465.82 square meters of the acquired land and prayed for compensation being granted to her. General award was passed in this regard. However, respondent No.3 challenged the same in WP No.5926/2021 and prayed that the consent award to be passed instead of general award and an order came to be passed to that effect in the said writ petition. Subsequently, respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry and based on the records available, came to the conclusion that respondent No.3 herein is the owner of the property concerned. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have preferred WP No.2092/2023 with a prayer to set aside the finding given by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 has preferred WP No.7247/2023 with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to pass an award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act (for short 'KIADB').

¶48

The case of the petitioners is that, once there is a dispute, the respondent No.2 has to compulsorily refer the matter to Reference Court and cannot decide as to the title of the property. It is further contended that the petitioners have

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶50

raised a dispute regarding title of the property and respondent No.2 should have referred the matter to the Reference Court and not have passed the impugned order. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and respondent No.2 be directed to deposit the compensation in the Reference Court.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners have failed to produce even an iota of evidence before the respondent No.2 to show that they have some title over the property. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 purchased the property on 14.06.2004 and a copy of the sale deed is produced here.

¶52

The contention of the respondent No.3 is supported by other respondents and it is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. The petitioners on the other hand relies upon partition deed dated 23.09.1952 and contends that their mother became the owner of the property partitioned by way of the partition deed and after her demise they have inherited the said property. However, no other document is produced to show that they have any right, title or interest over the

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶54

property concerned. The execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 is not disputed. Further, it is noticed that the petitioners are Muslims by religion and the concept of joint family property does not arise. If the petitioners have any right, title or interest over the property, they should have approached the Civil Court and got the rights in respect of the property declared. The document relied on by them even if held to be true and correct, does not confer any right on the petitioners in the absence of any action taken by them on the death of their mother. It is further submitted that their mother died in the year 1969. Under the circumstances, it has to be held petitioners have no right, title or interest over the property concerned as of now.

¶55

Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions does not preclude the petitioners to agitate their rights, if any, in respect of any other property mentioned in the said partition deed in the manner known to law. Further, in the light of the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of respondent No.3 and

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:1103 WP No. 2092 of 2023 C/W WP No. 7247 of 2023

¶57

pass an award under Section 29(2) of KIADB Act as expeditiously as possible.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

Mr Chunna Mohammad Rahamathulla v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chunna Mohammad Rahamathulla v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

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

Sri Bhagavan L Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sudha. S Vs the Tahasildar

J Munnagappa Vs the Commissioner

Kumar Alias Kumaraiah Vs Siddagangamma

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka