Disposed

Khurshidunnissa v. Union of India

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024WP/5391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners whose land was notified for highway acquisition in 2017 with final notification in 2018 sought compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act as none had been paid. Respondents were undecided on the highway alignment. The court directed them to decide whether to acquire or denotify the land within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to decide within six months whether to acquire the petitioners' land and pass appropriate notifications; otherwise owners may claim damages for loss sustained.

Khurshidunnissa Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.5391 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KHURSHIDUNNISSA W/O. DR. ILYAS AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶8

JOHAR TARIQ S/O DR. ILYAS AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BY HIS REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THE PETITIONER NO.1,

¶9

AMBAR MERAJ S/O DR. ILYAS AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF 'MERAJ MANJIL; GALIB SAB ROAD LASHKAR MOHALLA SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, 'TRANSPORT BHAVANA' I, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA TUMAKURU, BETTASHREE COMPLEX UPSTAIR RENUKA BAZAAR 1^ST FLOOR, 60 FEET ROAD SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶19

THE SPEICAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NH-206, TUMAKURU-SHIVAMOGGA SECTION SHIVAMOGGA NO.611-368/368/1 II FLOOR, CENTRAL AVENUES NEAR SBI BANK, N.T. ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3; NOTICE TO R.1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.03.2023.)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 TO THE PETITIONERS FOR HAVING ACQUIRED THEIR LAND SITUATED IN SY.NO.127/4 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 34 GUNTAS OF URGADURU VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK WITHIN AN PRESCRIBED PERIOD, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are said to be the owner of 34 guntas of

¶27

land in Sy.No.127/1 at Uragadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamoga Taluk. It is submitted that the said land is converted for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that respondents issued preliminary notification in the year 2017 and final notification in the year 2018 acquiring the land of the petitioners for formation of National Highway. However, as the compensation has not been paid, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶28

"WHEREFORE , the petitioners most respectfully pray that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

¶29

a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners for having acquired their land situated in sy.no.127/4 measuring to an extent of 34 guntas of Urgaduru village, Shivamogga taluk within an prescribed period;

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶31

b) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems it appropriate in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice;

¶32

c) Award the cost of this proceeding."

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land concerned is converted for commercial purposes, but they are not in a position to put to use the said land as it is notified for acquisition by National Highway Authority and though the land has been notified in the year 2017 itself, no compensation has been paid so far. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 upon instructions submits that initially the National Highway Authority notified acquiring the land of the petitioners along with several other lands. However, thereafter they realized that the proposed highway passes

¶35

through a populated area and there were representations from several persons to change the alignment of the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶37

highway. For that reason, respondents have not been able to take a decision whether to construct a highway as proposed or change the alignment. It is submitted that if the alignment were to be changed then the land of the petitioners will not be required for construction of the highway and it will be denotified. It is further submitted that if the same is not changed then the land of the petitioners will be required.

¶38

No doubt, respondents have the liberty to determine where the highway has to be constructed and it is not appropriate for this Court to substitute its wisdom with the wisdom of the National Highway Authority in this regard. However, the respondent cannot make the owners of the property suffer because of their inaction. Admittedly, in the instant case, preliminary notification acquiring the land of the petitioners was passed way back in the year 2017 and final notification is issued in the year 2018, since then, the petitioners have not been able to utilize the land concerned. They are put to a loss. Especially, if the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶41

respondents take a decision not to acquire the lands, then in that event, petitioners would be deprived of the earnings from the lands concerned till the date of taking such a decision. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent - Authorities to take a decision whether to acquire the land of the petitioners or not within a period of six months from today. Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Respondents are directed to decide whether the land of the petitioners are required for formation of Highway or not and pass appropriate notifications or initiate suitable action in this regard with a period of six months from today.

¶44

ii. If the respondents fail to take a decision within the stipulated period, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to sue the respondents for the loss that they may sustain due to they not being able to utilize the land concerned.

¶45

iii. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:23483 WP No. 5391 of 2023

¶48

iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

VMB