Landowner challenged acquisition of 10 guntas for wayside amenities along National Highway-48, contending guidelines were not followed and his objection was not considered. The Court held suitability of land lies with the acquiring authority, objections were filed beyond 21 days under Section 3C, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.17825 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
SY.NO.13, NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, 14TH KM. BENGALURU - TUMKURU ROAD, HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VASANT S. KOPPAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27TH JUNE, 2023 PUBLISHED IN THE KANNADA DAILY NEWSPAPER 'KANNADA PRABHA' DATED 28TH JUNE, 2023 IN RESPECT OF 0.10 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.19/1 OF KORAMANGALA VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE NOTICE DATED 05TH JULY, 2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Notification dated 27th June, 2023 (Annexure-A) and Notice dated 05th July, 2023 (Annexure-A1) issued by the respondent No.2.
that, the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.19 measuring to an extent of 341 /2 guntas having purchased the
3
same by registered Sale Deed dated 05th September, 2005 (Annexure-B) and revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner. It is pleaded in the writ petition that, the respondentAuthorities have issued Notification dated 27th June, 2023 (Annexure-A) for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 10 guntas for the purpose of widening of National Highway-48 between Nelamangala to Hassan. It is stated by the petitioner that, the respondent-Authorities have not acquired 10 guntas of the land belonging to the petitioner and he had received compensation for the land to an extent of 26.08 guntas and as such, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that, the utilisation of the 10 guntas of the land by the respondent-Authorities in terms of the Notification dated 27th June, 2023 (Annexure-A) is bad in law.
4
belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 10 guntas in survey No.19/1 of Koramangala Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk is bad in law on the ground that, the respondent-Authorities have not followed the procedure contemplated in respect of the acquisition of the land to provide wayside amenities along National Highways as per letter dated 19th October, 2004 and the guidelines appended to the letter dated 11th February, 2021 and therefore, the respondent-Authorities have not considered the objection filed by the petitioner dated 26th July, 2023 (Annexure-K). Accordingly, he sought for dropping of the acquisition proceedings.
5
dated 05th August, 2023 (Annexure-R8) in respect of the subject
land to an extent of 10 guntas, the award notice dated 03rd November, 2023 (Annexure-R10) is issued by the respondentAuthorities and therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings. By refereeing to Section 3C of the National Highways Act, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 contended that the petitioner has not filed objection within 21 days from the date of publication of Notification in respect of the subject land. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 also invited to the provision contained under Section 25 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and contended that, the entire formalities have been completed and portion of the land to an extent of 10 guntas will be utilised for wayside amenities. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6
acquire various lands including the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 26.08 guntas for the purpose of widening of National Highway-75 (old NH-48) in the stretch of NelamangalaHassan Section. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner in possession of 341 /2 guntas in Survey No.19 of Koramangala Village, Soluru Hobli, Magadi Taluk wherein, the respondent-Authorities have acquired 26.08 guntas leaving behind 10 guntas, belonging to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that, in respect of acquisition of 26.08 guntas, the petitioner had received compensation from the respondent-Authorities, however, the dispute in this writ petition is with regard to remaining 10 guntas of land. It is also not in dispute that the award notice was issued, opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and further, award dated 05th August, 2023 (Annexure-R8) came to be passed under Section 3G of the National Highways Act in respect of 10 guntas of land. As per Section 3C of the National Highways Act, the person interested has to file objections, opposing the acquisition proceedings however, in the present case the objection is made by the petitioner beyond 21 days and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In respect of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
7
petitioner that the respondent-Authorities have not followed the guidelines, I have carefully examined the norms for suitability of location in the policy guidelines for development of Wayside Amenities along National Highways and Express ways. Guideline No.3.4 and 3.8 reads as under:
"3.4. The Land area for development of wayside amenities may preferably be about 1 hectare and shall have adequate frontage for easy entry and exit of the traffic. However, development of wayside amenities on smaller size of land area may also be considered and permitted by Government, in area (such as mountainous and steep terrain etcetera) where there is scarcity of land.
3.5. xxx
3.6. xxx
3.7. xxx
3.8. The land on both side of National Highway at a particular location shall be preferred for development of wayside amenities targeting car/passengers. Such site shall be developed by connecting through the transparent skywalk. (Typical layout placed at Figure I & II of Annexure-1)."
area for development of wayside amenities be about 1 hectare and guideline No.3.8 connotes 'preferred for development' and
8
therefore, the suitability of the land is in the realm of acquiring authority and therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the acquisition proceedings as the guidelines is to be looked into while acquiring the properties for laying National Highways and Express ways. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMNIKLAL N.
BHUTTA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 1997 SC 1236 at paragraph 10 held as follows:
"Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the
9
acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that
10
these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings".
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition and utilisation of the petitioner's remaining 10 guntas in Survey No.19/1 for wayside amenities along NH-48 was valid despite alleged non-compliance with wayside amenity guidel
Whether the Court can interfere with the acquiring authority's choice of land suitability under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersFollowed¶9
AIR 1997 SC 1236 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. Narasimhamurthy S/o Lakshmaiah
Union of India by Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways
The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Office of the Competent Authority Nelamangala-Hassan Section, NH-48
The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
