Disposed¶46

Sri. Mohan S/O Narayan Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Land Acquisition – BRTS project

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2025WP/101530/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

certiorari; mandamus; award in the negative; reference Court; Section 35 Karnataka Highways Act; BRTS project; road widening; Special Land Acquisition Officer; land acquisition compensation; maintainability of writ petition Articles 226 227; Sy.No. 66K/1 Navalur Village; Hubballi-Dharwad; limitation extension 30 days; senior citizen petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate reference under Section 35 of the Karnataka Highways Act; limitation period, if any, extended by 30 days from the date of the order to enable filing of such reference. ¶46

Sri. Mohan S/O Narayan Hegde Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether, where the SLAO has passed an order in the negative holding that no acquisition was made, the questions of whether any portion of the petitioner's land was acquired and what compensation is payable can be decided in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, or whether the land loser must establish them before the reference Court. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

An SLAO order negating the claim of acquisition is virtually an award in the negative, and even against such an award the land loser has a right to seek a reference both for enhancement and for establishing title to the property said to be acquired.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Whether any portion of the petitioner's land was acquired and, if so, what compensation is payable, must be established before the reference Court; if there is no acquisition there is no requirement of compensation. These matters cannot be gone into in writ petition jurisdiction.

¶45

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate reference under Section 35 of the Karnataka Highways Act, and the limitation period, if any, is extended by 30 days from the date of the order to enable filing of such reference.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - BRTS project - Petitioner claimed that 1 guntas 10.50 annas out of his land in Sy.No. 66K/1, Navalur Village was utilised for widening of the road/implementation of the BRTS project without payment of compensation - SLAO, by order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure-L), held that no acquisition had been made - Held: (i) such an order is virtually an award in the negative; even as regards an award negating the claim of the land loser, the land loser has a right of reference seeking both enhancement and establishment of title; (ii) whether any portion of the land was acquired and what compensation is payable must be established before the reference Court and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227; (iii) writ petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate reference under Section 35 of the Karnataka Highways Act; limitation, if any, extended by 30 days from the date of order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3264 WP No. 101530 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101530 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MOHAN S/O NARAYAN HEGDE AGE 84 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O P B ROAD NEAR K C PARK TQ AND DIST DHARWAD-580001

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K L PATIL & SRI. S.S. BETURMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI

¶14

Digitally signed byASHPAK KASHIMSAMALAGALADINNI Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.02.21 16:31:07+0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K. R.D.C.L/H.D.B.R.T.S N.W.K.R.T.C. OFFICE TEMINAL BUILDING B BLOCK 2^ND FLOOR NEW COURT ROAD, HOSUR, TQ HUBBALLI DIST DHARWAD-580021

¶17

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., SAMPARKA SOUDH, SY NO. 8, B E P PREMISES (OPPOSITE ORION MALL) DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJI NAGAR, 1ST BLOCK

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3264 WP No. 101530 of 2022

¶20

BENGALURU-560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶21

HUBBALLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P B ROAD, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HUBBALLI-580002 DIST: DHARWAD. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.5.2024)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1 SRI. C.V. ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KRDCL/BHUSW/NVLR/290/2021-22/81 DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDNET NO.2 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶30

i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned order bearing No.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3264 WP No. 101530 of 2022

¶32

KRDCL/BHUSWA/NVLR/290/2021-22/81 dated 25.11.2021 passed by R2 which is at Annexure-L

¶33

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing R2 to pass an award in respect of 1 guntas 10.50 annas out of land of the Petitioner bearing Sy.No. 66K/1 situated at Navalur Village, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents to pay additional damages to the Petitioner (Senior Citizen) for having delayed for more than 8 years the entire process of payment of compensation to the petitioner.

¶35

iv. Any other reliefs this Hon’ble Court deems fit for the facts and circumstances of the case may please be grated in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

The contention of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner in plot No.66K/1 has been acquired, compensation has not been paid and order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) dated 25.11.2021 at Annexure-L has held that there is no acquisition made when in fact there is acquisition made.

¶37

The submission of Sri.K.L.Patil., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a portion of the property belonging to petitioner in plot No.66K/1 has been made use of for the BRTS project and in this regard he relies upon the survey sketch at Annexure-C to indicate that on the northern side of the property of the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3264 WP No. 101530 of 2022

¶40

petitioner is situated the BRTS road and a portion of the land of the petitioner has been utilized for the widening of the road and implementation of BRTS project, compensation is required to be awarded to the petitioner. It is in that background that the aforesaid prayer is sought for to quash the order passed by the SLAO dated 25.11.2021 at Annexure-L.

¶41

The petitioner claiming that a portion of the land has been acquired, the SLAO having held that the portion of the land has not been acquired is virtually an award in the negative passed by the SLAO. Even as regards an award which is passed negating the claim of the land loser, the land loser would have a right for reference seeking both for enhancement and for establishing the title of the property which has been acquired. The same cannot be established in a writ petition of this nature.

¶42

The contention of the petitioner being that a portion of the land has been acquired, the contention of the SLAO and the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited being that no land of the petitioner has been acquired, it would have to be established before the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3264 WP No. 101530 of 2022

¶45

reference Court as to whether any portion of the land has been acquired or not and if so acquired, what is the compensation liable to be paid.

¶46

Needless to say, if the acquisition is not made there will be no requirement of compensation to be paid. These are matters which cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ petition jurisdiction. Hence reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate reference under Section 35 of the Karnataka Highways Act, the petition stands

¶47

disposed of .

¶48

The limitation period, if any, is extended by a period of 30 days from today to enable the petitioner to file such reference.

¶49

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113

Sri. Mohan S/O Narayan Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohan S/O Narayan Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Acciona Agua S a Vs Bangalore Water Supply and

Chandru Ganapu Gouda S/O Ganapu Gouda Vs State of Karnataka

Mamajigani W/O Mahammadrasur Shiggav D/O Husensab Dalal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sneha W/O Ravindra Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Fakirappa Siddappa Halagatti, Vs Smt. Siddavva D/O. Lakshappa Halagatti Since Deceased by Her Lrs Respondent NO.2 to 4 and 6

Rachayya S/O Gangayya Aliyas Gangadharaswami Karimani Vs the State of Karnataka