Allowed

Smt Soumya Raghuveer v. the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/2181/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging an order refusing rectification of land guideline market value due to NHAI acquisition. Court held state rejection arbitrary and directed respondent to rectify discrepancies via RTOI query.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned RTI order and direction to rectify guideline market value discrepancies within six weeks.

Smt Soumya Raghuveer Vs the Inspector General of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38956 WP No. 2181 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2181 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SOUMYA RAGHUVEER WIFE OF SRI RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶8

M BEERAPPA SON OF SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS

¶9

2(A) SMT. BHARATHAMMA WIFE OF LATE BEERAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶11

RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE SULIBELE POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129

¶12

REP. BY MRS. SOUMYA RAGHUVEER.

¶13

2(B) SHRI RAGHUVEER

¶14

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

¶15

SON OF LATE BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶16

RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE

¶17

SULIBELE POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129 REP. BY MRS. SOUMYA RAGHUVEER.

¶18

2(C) SHRI. RAJITH B SON OF LATE BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE SULIBELE POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129 REP. BY MRS. SOUMYA RAGHUVEER.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38956 WP No. 2181 of 2020

¶20

2(D) SMT. AKILA

¶21

DAUGHTER OF LATE BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶22

RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE SULIBELE POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129 REP. BY MRS. SOUMYA RAGHUVEER.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY V JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VACHAN H U, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS CENTRAL VALUATION COMMITTEE, KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8TH FLOOR, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGLAURU-560009.

¶27

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, KUNIGAL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-207 (NEW NO.648) (DABASPETE-HOSKOTE DIVISION), SITE OFFICE-NELAMANGALA, (SRIGANDHA PETROL BUNK, SONDEKOPPA CIRCLE) …RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONVEYED TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ON 28.10.2019 ANNEXURE-A HEREIN AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:38956 WP No. 2181 of 2020

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Heard learned counsels for the parties .

¶36

Petitioner No.1 is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 16, measuring 4 acres 28 guntas, and Petitioner No.2 is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 10/1, measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, both situated in Yettinavodeyapura Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

¶37

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) acquired the subject lands for the widening of National Highway No. 207. The petitioners, upon noticing that the guideline market value of lands in Yettinavodeyapura Village was shown as abutting a main road instead of the National Highway, submitted representations to the respondents requesting rectification of the discrepancies in the guideline market value.

¶38

The Sub-Registrar, Hoskote, issued a communication dated 05.11.2018 to the Central Valuation Committee, stating that the subject lands abut National Highway No. 207, and therefore, requested rectification of the discrepancies in the guideline market value of the subject lands.

¶39

Subsequently, the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps communicated with the District Registrar of Stamps to verify the authenticity of the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:38956 WP No. 2181 of 2020

¶42

The Deputy Registrar of Stamps, vide communication dated 06.02.2019, submitted a report to the Secretary, Central Valuation Committee, stating that the subject lands abut National Highway No. 207 and that the guideline market value of the land abutting National Highway No. 207 is fixed at Rs.80Lakh per acre.

¶43

However, the State Government refused to accept the report, citing concerns that rectifying the discrepancies in the guideline market value would result in the payment of exorbitant compensation for future land acquisitions abutting National Highway No. 207.

¶44

The Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar of Stamps, after due enquiry, have categorically stated that the subject lands abut National Highway No.207. Therefore, the rejection of the report by the State Government on the grounds of future compensation is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to seek just and proper compensation.

¶45

In light of the foregoing, the discrepancies in the guideline market value concerning the subject lands must be rectified.. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶48

ii) The impugned order dated 22.9.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 annexed to the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:38956 WP No. 2181 of 2020

¶51

iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to rectify the discrepancies in the guideline market value of the subject land, taking into account the reports submitted by the concerned Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar of Stamps.

¶52

iv) The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶55

Smt Soumya Raghuveer v. the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Soumya Raghuveer v. the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

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

M/S Naveena Granites Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Venugopala G S Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Gsk Projects and Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs Canara Bank

Muniyabhovi Vs the Chief Superintendent

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka