Sri M Sudhakar Pai Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.15919 OF 2025 (LA - RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

1 . SRI M.SUDHAKAR PAI S/O LATE M.KOGGANNA PAI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ADVOCATE-HIGH COURT, NO.1080, 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS, KODANDARAMAPURAM, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

¶7

2 . SRI M.NARAYANA PAI S/O LATE M.KOGGANNA PAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, P.O. MANI – 574 253 BANTWAL TALUK (D.K.)

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

2

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY - 75 (48), HASSAN, B.C.ROAD DIVISION, NO.HIG-64, D.T.D.C. COURIER OFFICE BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, K.H.B. COLONY, CHANNAPATTANA, OPP. NEW K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, HASSAN – 573 201 (COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA)

¶13

2 . THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, P.I.U, MANGALURU, DOOR NO.3-29, “BETHEL”, THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (NH-66) MANGALURU – 575 002 (D.K.)

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI BIDAN CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PADMANABHA HOLLA S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD-02.05.2025 IN NO. SLAO / NHAI / AWARD / DK.22B / MANI / 2024-25 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY -75(48), HASSAN, B.C.ROAD DIVISION, HASSAN (VIDE ANNEXURE-Q); DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶17

3

¶18

AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-75(48), HASSAN, B.C.ROAD DIVISION, HASSAN TO PASS AN AWARD FORTHWITH IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER NO.(1), IN RESPECT OF A LAND MEASURING 384 SQ.MTRS IN SY.NO.128/8B1 OF MANI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK(DK), IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OWN ENDORSEMENT IN NO. SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-8/2022-23 DTD25.04.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO W.P.) AND ALSO PASS AN AWARD FORTHWITH IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER NO.(2), IN RESPECT OF A LAND MEASURING 425 SQ.MTRS IN SY.NO.128/18 OF MANI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK(DK), IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OWN ENDORSEMENT IN NO. SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-7/202223 DTD-25.04.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO W.P.) AND ALSO PURSUANT TO THE REPRESENTATION DTD-08.04.2025(VIDE ANNEXURE-P TO W.P.) WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS, INTEREST, ETC. ETC., ACCRUING THEREFROM; C) DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PAY COSTS TO THE PETITIONERS FOR MEDDLING WITH THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

4

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

CAV ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question endorsement dated 02-05-2025 issued by the 1^st respondent/ Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Competent Authority, National Highways, whereby the claim for enhancement of compensation comes to be rejected and as a consequence thereof, the petitioners have sought a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing grant of enhancement of compensation to the land that is utilized beyond the acquired area.

¶24

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

¶25

2.1. Land measuring 1 acre 86 cents in Sy.No.128/8B1 at Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District was allotted to the petitioners and their father. The petitioners are brothers. All the statutory and revenue entries stood in the names of these petitioners right from the year 1988-89. On 24-05-1997 Sy.No.128/8B1 becomes the subject mater of partition through a partition deed between the petitioners and their father. Land in

¶26

5

¶27

Sy.No.128/8B1A measuring 1 acre 26 cents comes to the share of the 1^st petitioner and land in Sy.No.128/8B1B measuring 60 cents comes to the share of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶28

2.2. When things stood thus, a replotting order comes to be passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Mangalore (‘DDLR’) in the light of some discrepancy in the description of property. Then comes the activities of the National Highways Authority of India to widen the road or drawing of a four lane road in NH-48 in Mani Village of Bantwal Taluk. In furtherance of the said activity, a preliminary notification comes to be issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) calling for objections from all stake holders. Joint measurement surveys of notified lands were conducted and later a final notification comes to be issued under Section 3D(1) of the Act on 01-09-2020. Land measuring 324 sq.mts. in Sy.No.128/8B1A and land measuring 809 sq.mts. in Sy.No.128/8B1B were acquired under Section 3D(1) of the Act. Land in Sy.No.128/8B1A was categorized as private nonagriculture land, whereas the land in Sy.No.128/8B1B was categorized as Government kharab in the said notification. The

¶29

6

¶30

petitioners filed their objections of such categorization contending that 708 sq.mts. of land was utilized in Sy.No.128/8B1A and 425 sq.mts. of land was utilized in Sy.No.128/8B1B which was not found in the notification.

¶31

2.3. The 1^st respondent/SLAO passed an award under Section 3G(1) of the Act determining compensation payable for the acquired land. In terms of the award, no compensation was awarded for the land in Sy.No.128/8B1B, since it was declared to be a Government kharab land and the land was to be handed over to NHAI free of cost. Detailed compensation determination was also drawn. The petitioners then submit individual representations to the respondents contending that their lands have not been surveyed properly and petitioners were given meager amounts as compensation on the aforesaid score.

¶32

2.4. The 1^st respondent/SLAO sought to resolve the dispute

¶33

which resulted in an endorsement that the lands would be re-surveyed, since re-plotting order in favour of the petitioners was not considered while determining compensation. The resurvey was

¶34

7

¶35

done and it was found that re-plotting was done in respect of Sy.No.128/8B1B subsequent to the preliminary and final notifications in terms of a mutation order. The 1^st respondent/SLAO issued an endorsement stating that as per the replotting done, the land utilized of the petitioners is more than the extent of land that is acquired and as such, 1^st petitioner is entitled for a compensation of the remaining land to an extent of 384 sq. mtrs. and 2^nd petitioner is entitled to an extent of 425 sq. mtrs. Accordingly, requested the petitioners not to object for surrendering of their lands and the petitioners have accordingly surrendered their lands.

¶36

2.5. The petitioners then submit a representation claiming compensation for 21 cents of land which was claimed to be utilized beyond 324 sq.mts. which comes to light on a survey being conducted on 25-09-2023 and the claim remained as claim, as the said claim was turned down by the impugned endorsement. It is the aforesaid action of denial of compensation to the acquisition of land in its entirety that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶37

8

¶38

Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Bidan Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶39

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned endorsement is contradictory to the previous endorsements issued by the SLAO. Awards would be passed in order to adequately compensate the petitioners. The endorsement dated 25-04-2022 did assure that the petitioners would be compensated. Based on the said assurance, the petitioners had surrendered their lands. The respondents have fully utilized the lands of the petitioners and now they cannot deny compensation after such utilization. The reasoning to deny appropriate compensation for the lands utilized is erroneous, as re-plotting of the lands was done long before preliminary notification and obviously before the final notification. Therefore, he seeks quashment of the endorsement and issuance of mandamus directing payment of appropriate compensation for the lands acquired.

¶40

9

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable, as there is an alternative remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The learned counsel submits that if the land owners are not satisfied with the amount determined by the Competent Authority, the dispute will have to be resolved by the Arbitrator appointed under the Act. It is his contention that the petitioners have unlawfully re-plotted the notified land after issuance of notifications under Section 3A and 3D of the Act and replotting was conducted without prior intimation or approval from the Authorities. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted enhanced compensation. Insofar as Sy.No.128/8B1B is concerned, it is a Government Kharab land and no right is conferred upon the petitioners on such land. Therefore, compensation cannot be granted for the said land.

¶42

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issues that fall for consideration are:–

¶43

10

¶44

(i) Whether the writ petition would be maintainable in the teeth of alternative remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the Act?

¶45

(ii) Whether the impugned endorsement suffers from nonapplication of mind and the petitioners would become entitled to enhanced compensation for the lands acquired?

¶46

ISSUE NO.1:

¶47

Whether the writ petition would be maintainable in the teeth of alternative remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the Act?

¶48

The contention is that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as an alternative statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act is available to these petitioners. Section 3G(5) reads as follows:

¶49

“ 3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation :

¶50

(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.”

¶51

11

¶52

Section 3G(5) directs that if the amount determined by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the said action be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by Government of India. The interpretation of this sub-section need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The High Court of Punjab And Haryana answers an identical plea taken by the NHAI in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. RESHAM SINGH¹ wherein the High Court holds that a writ petition would be maintainable despite existence of alternative remedy in the following paragraphs:

¶53

“….

¶54

Point (b):

¶55

40. We shall next consider point (b) which is as under:

¶56

“(b) Whether the landowners should be denied relief on the ground that they did not challenge the award of the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 by way of arbitration under section 3G(5) of the said Act and had directly filed writ petition in this Court for seeking benefits of section 23(1-A), section 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?”

¶57

41. In the context of contractual disputes between parties of whom one of them is a State or a State instrumentality, in spite of the contract containing an arbitration clause, the Supreme Court had held that such

¶58

1 2023 SCC OnLine P & H 7228

¶59

12

¶60

a clause is not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by High Courts.

¶61

42. In Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , the petitioner's dealership was terminated by the respondent-Corporation for an irrelevant and nonexistent cause. The Supreme Court held that they should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of being driven by the High Court to arbitration proceedings. The Court held that the rule of exclusion of Writ jurisdiction because of availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion; and in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of alternative remedy the High Court can still exercise its Writ jurisdiction, i.e., where the Writ petition seeks enforcement of fundamental rights or where there is a failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

¶62

43. This was reiterated in Ram Barai Singh and Co. v. State of Bihar wherein the Supreme Court declared that a constitutional remedy by way of a Writ Petition is always available to an aggrieved party and an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties cannot ipso facto render a Writ Petition “not maintainable”.

¶63

44. Recently, in Unitech Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation the Supreme Court held that recourse to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not excluded altogether in a contractual matter; and a public law remedy is available for enforcing legal rights subject to well settled parameters. It relied on the decision in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of Indi a¹⁷ and held that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded in contractual matters and the presence of an arbitration clause within a contract between a State instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing the remedies under Article 226. It declared that if the State instrumentality violates the constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of the

¶64

13

¶65

Article 226 of the Constitution can be granted. It quoted the following passage in ABL International (17 supra):

¶66

“28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Mark s¹⁸ . ) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.”

¶67

(emphasis supplied)

¶68

45. In the instant case, the NHAI contends that in view of the remedy of arbitration contained in section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to challenge the award of compensation made by the competent authority under section 3G(1) of the said Act, this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed by the landowners whose lands were acquired under the said Act.

¶69

46. We have already noted that a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment delivered on 28.03.2008 in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra) held that landowners, whose lands are acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, are entitled to solatium and interest in terms similar to those contained in section 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶70

47. This was challenged by the NHAI before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 10695 of 2011, did not grant any stay of the said judgment.

¶71

14

¶72

48. Only on 03.08.2017, Civil appeal No. 10695 of 2011 filed against the decision of this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra) was disposed of in terms of a settlement entered into between the parties.

¶73

49. Thus, the decision of this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra) was holding the field between 28.03.2008 and 03.08.2017.

¶74

50. The decision in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra) was later specifically upheld by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (2 supra) on 19.09.2019 (at para 48).

¶75

51. The Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra v. Union of India had taken the view that solatium and interest should be granted to landowners whose land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 whose proceedings are pending on 28.03.2008 when this High Court pronounced the judgment in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra).

¶76

52. Though the NHAI was a party to the said decisions and the principle of law laid down in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra) was binding on it, yet in all the awards passed by the competent authority under section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in respect of the landowners in the instant batch of cases, which awards were passed after 28.03.2008 (the date of the decision in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra)) (from April 2008 to 2014), the competent authority did not follow the said principle and denied solatium and interest in terms akin to that under section 23(2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to them.

¶77

53. The competent authority cannot ignore binding precedents and decide contrary to it. This is patently arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. This also results in discrimination among the landowners whose lands are acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶78

15

¶79

54. Therefore, we hold that since NHAI, a State instrumentality, has violated the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the landowners to invoke the plenary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief.”

¶80

(Emphasis supplied)

¶81

The Court allows the petition on the ground that the award passed by NHAI had not considered the fact that the petitioners were entitled to solatium and interest in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUNITA MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA – (2019) 17 SCC 672 and UNION OF INDIA v. TARSEM SINGH – (2019) 9 SCC 304. The Court observes that there cannot be a bar against a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the State is a party to the contractual dispute and an aggrieved party can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226, in the teeth of an arbitration clause present in the contract. I am in respectful agreement with what the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held and following the said judgment, I hold that the present petition is entertainable, despite the remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the Act.

¶82

16

¶83

ISSUE NO.2:

¶84

Whether the impugned endorsement suffers from nonapplication of mind and the petitioners would become entitled to enhanced compensation for the lands acquired?

¶85

8.1. The land of the petitioners was divided into two survey numbers viz., Sy.Nos.128/8B1A and 128/8B1B measuring 1 acre 26 cents and 60 cents respectively. Both the petitioners had approached the DDLR, Mangalore in Appeal No.68 of 2019-20 seeking replotting of land owing to certain discrepancy. The DDLR passes an order of replotting on 28-02-2020. The order of replotting order reads as follows:

¶86

“��ಾ � �ಾ�ಯವರ �ಾಂ��ಕ ಸ�ಾಯಕರು �ಾಗೂ ಪದ��ತ� ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆ ಗಳ ಉಪ��ೆ ೕ#ಶಕರ %ಾ&'ಾಲಯ, ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ ��ೆ�, ಮಂಗಳ/ರು.

¶87

ಉಪ01ತರು: 2.�ೆ .ಕುಸು3ಾಧರ, �ೆ .�.ಎ6

¶88

ಸಂ: ಎ6.ಯು. ಆ;. ಅ=ೕಲು/ 68/19.20 ?%ಾಂಕ :28.02.2020 1. @�ೕ. ಎಂ.%ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ 2D ?।। ಎಂ.�ೊಗEಣF Bೈ 2. @�ೕ ಎಂ.ಸುGಾಕರ Bೈ. 2D ?।। ಎಂ.�ೊಗEಣF Bೈ, HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರು

¶89

3ಾK BೇLೆ , 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮ ಮತು� ಅಂNೆ , ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂಕು

¶90

17

¶91

ಮತು�

¶92

ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇ#ಶಕರು ಭೂ3ಾಪನ ಭೂ3ಾಪನ QಾRೆ , ಬಂLಾPಳ

¶93

ಪ��Sಾ?ಗಳT

¶94

ಪ'ಾ#SೇUಕರು, ಭೂ3ಾಪನ QಾRೆ , ಬಂLಾPಳ

¶95

ತಹ@ೕ�ಾWರರು ಬಂLಾPಳ

¶96

ಪ�Xಾ�ವ% :

¶97

HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರು ಕ%ಾ#ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ�ಾಯ �ಾZW 1964ರ ಕಲಂ 49(ಎ) ಅ[ಯ\� ಪ��Sಾ?ಯವAಾದ ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇ#ಶಕರು ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಉಪJ]ಾಗ ಇವರ ಆ�ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ.ಎ_.ಎD/107/73.74 ರಂ�ೆ ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂಕು 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821 ರ\� 128/821ಎ ಮತು� 8212 ಎಂದು 3ಾ[ದ Bಾ�ಂa ಪ�@,0 HೕಲIನJಯನು, ಎ6.ಯು. ಆ;. ಅ=ೕಲು /68/2019.20 ರಂ�ೆ %ೋಂ�ಾb0�ೊಳc�ಾd�ೆ . JNಾರeೆಯನು, ?%ಾಂಕ: 17.01.2020 �ೆf �ಗ�ಪ[0 Sಾ? ಮತು� ಪ��Sಾ?ಯವ�Mೆ %ೋೕಸು gಾ&� 3ಾಡ�ಾbತು. ಪ�ಕರಣವನು, �ೈMೆ� � ೊಂಡು ಸ�ಾರಣಗhMೆ JNಾರeೆಯನು, ಮುಂದೂ[ ಅಂ�ಮ ಆ�ೇಶ�ೆf �ಾbW�ಸ�ಾbತು.

¶98

HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರು �ಾಜರುಪ[0ದ ಪjರಕ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು, ಪ�@ೕ\ಸ�ಾd, ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂಕು 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821 ರ\� 1.86 ಎ�ೆ� ಸ1ಳJದುW ದXಾ�Sೇಜು ಸಂRೆ& 36/88.89 ರಂ�ೆ HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರ ಮತು� ಅವರ ತಂ�ೆಯವ�Mೆ ಜಂ'ಾd ಬಂ?ರುತ **�** ೆ. ನಂತರದ\� ?%ಾಂಕ: 24.05.1997 ರ\� ದXಾ�Sೇಜು ಸಂRೆ& 121/1997.98 ರ J]ಾಗ ಪತ�ದಂ�ೆ 1%ೇ HೕಲIನJ�ಾರ�Mೆ ಪjSಾಂ#ಶದ\� 0.60 ಎ�ೆ� ಮತು� 2%ೇ HೕಲIನJ�ಾರ�Mೆ ಪ@v3ಾಂಶದ\� 1.26 ಎ�ೆ� ಜ�ೕನು Jಂಗಡ%ೆ'ಾdರುತ **�** ೆ. ಸ?� 1.26 ಎ�ೆ� ಸ1ಳದ\� 0.10 ಎ�ೆ� ಪ��ೇಶವw ತಹ@ೕ�ಾWರರು ಬಂLಾPಳ ಇವರ ಆ�ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ& ಇ.[6/ಎ.ಎ_.ಎD/0.ಆ;/920/04.05 ರಂ�ೆ SಾKಜ& ಉ�ೆWೕಶ�ಾfd ಭೂಪ�ವತ#%ೆ'ಾdರುತ **�** ೆ. xdರುSಾಗ 2%ೇ HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರು ತಮI 1.16 ಎ�ೆ� ಜ�ೕನನು, �ೈMಾ��ಾ ಉ�ೆWೕಶ�ಾfd ಭೂಪ�ವತ#%ೆ 3ಾಡುವ yಾಬು� ಅ\%ೇಷD ನ{ೆMಾd 1%ೇ ಪ��Sಾ?ಯವ�Mೆ ಅ�# �ೕ[�ಾಗ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821 ರ\� ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇಶಕರ ಆ�ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ.ಎ_.ಎD/107/73.74 ರಂ�ೆ 128/821ಎ ಮತು� 128/8212 ಎಂದು ಕ�ಮSಾd 1.46 ಎ�ೆ� ಮತು� 0.40 ಎ�ೆ� ಎಂದು Bಾ�ಂa ಆdರುವ Jಷಯವw �hದು ಬಂ?ರುತ � ೆ. ಸ?� Bಾ�ಂa ಆದ ನ{ೆಯು XಾP?ೕ%ಾನುಭವ ಮತು� ಭೂಪ�ವತ#%ೆ ನ{ೆMೆ Jರದ|Sಾdರುವwದ�ಂದ ಸ?� ದುರ0� ಕ�ಮವನು, ರದುW ಪ[0 �ೊಸ�ಾd Bಾ�ಂa 3ಾ[�ೊಡyೇ�ಾd HೕಲIನJ�ಾರರು ತಮI HೕಲIನJಯ\� �ೇh�ೊಂ[ರು�ಾ�Aೆ.

¶99

18

¶100

Hೕ\ನ ಎ�ಾ� Jಷಯಗಳನು, ಪ�@ೕ\ಸ�ಾd ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂಕು 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821 ರ\� ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇಶಕರು ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಉಪJ]ಾಗ ಇವರ ಆ�ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ.ಎ_.ಎD/107/73.74 ರಂ�ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821ಎ ಮತು� 128/8212 ಎಂದು Jಂಗ[ಸ�ಾದ Bಾ�`ಂa ನ{ೆಯು XಾP�ೕ%ಾನುಭವ�ೆf Jರುದ|Sಾdರುವwದ�ಂದ ಸ?� ದುರ0� ಕ�ಮವನು, ರದುWಪ[ಸುವwದು ಸೂಕ�Sೆಂದು ಮನಗಂಡು ಈ �ೆಳdನಂ�ೆ ಆ�ೇಶ 3ಾ[�ೆ.

¶101

ಆ�ೆ ೕಶ

¶102

ಪ�Xಾ�ವ%ೆಯ\� Jವ�0ದ �ಾರಣಗhಂ�ಾd HೕಲIನJಯನು, ಪwರಸf�0�ೆ . ��ಾ��ಾ�ಯವರ �ಾಂ��ಕ ಸ�ಾಯಕರು �ಾಗೂ ಪದ��ತ� ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಉಪ��ೇ#ಶಕರು , ( �ೆಚುvವ� ಪ�]ಾರ ) ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ ��ೆ� ಮಂಗಳ/ರು , 2 . �ೆ . ಕುಸು3ಾಧರ ಆದ %ಾನು ಕ%ಾ#ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ�ಾಯ �ಾZW 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 49( ಎ ) ಮತು� 25 ರ ಅ[ಯ\� ದತ�Sಾದ ಅ��ಾರವನು, ಉಪ•ೕd0 ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇ#ಶಕರು ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಉಪJ]ಾಗ ಇವರ ಆ�ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ.ಎ_.ಎD /107/73.74 ರಂ�ೆ ಸ.ನಂ 128/ 821 ರ\� 128/8 21ಎ ಮತು� 128/8 212 ಎಂದು Bಾ�`ಂa 3ಾ[ರುವwದು ಕ�ಮಬದ|Sಾdಲ� ೆ ೕ ೆೆೆ ಇರುವwದ�ಂದ ಸ?� ದುರ0� ಕ�ಮವನು, ರದುWMೊh0�ೆWೕ%ೆ �ಾಗೂ ಪ�ಕರಣ�ೆf ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ€ ಎ�ಾ� x�ಾಸ•�ಾರ�Mೆ �ಳTವh�ೆ �ೕ[ �ೊಸ�ಾd ಅಳ�ೆ ಮತು� ದುರ0� �ಾಯ# ಜರdಸಲು ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇ#ಶಕರು ಬಂLಾPಳ ಇವ�Mೆ ಆ�ೇ@0�ೆ .

¶103

ಈ ಆ�ೇಶವನು, ಉಕ� ೆ ೕಖನ ೆೆೆ �ೕ[ ಪ�ಷf�0 ಈ ?ನ ?%ಾಂಕ : 28.02.2020 ರಂದು ಮುಕ� %ಾ&'ಾಲಯದ\� ಬxರಂಗSಾd ‚ೂೕƒ0�ೆ.”

¶104

(Emphasis added)

¶105

In terms of replotting, the correct measurement land belonging to these petitioners, as depicted in the deed of partition, comes about. Five months thereafter, on 07-07-2020, a preliminary notification comes to be issued by the NHAI under Section 3A(1) of the Act. Insofar lands of the petitioners are concerned, land measuring 324 sq.mts. in Sy.No.128/8B1A and land measuring 809 sq.mts. in Sy.No.128/8B1B were notified for acquisition. Joint measurement

¶106

19

¶107

survey of the notified lands was also conducted after 14-07-2020, the result of which is issuance of a final notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act on 01-09-2020. In the said final notification 324 sq.mts. and 809 sq.mts. in Sy.No. 128/8B1A and Sy.No.128/8B1B were acquired, but the land in Sy.No.128/8B1B was categorised as Government kharab. Thus, compensation for kharab land was not determined.

¶108

8.2. The petitioners then submit their individual representations on 09-10-2021 contending that lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired way beyond the notified area and, therefore, sought compensation. A communication is sent to the petitioners on 13-10-2021 which reads as follows:

¶109

“No.:17016/1/2021/PIU(Mingir)/ 217 13^th Oct 2021

¶110

TO The Competent Authority & Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hassan.

¶111

Sub: Four Janing of Addahole (near Gundya) (Existing Km 263.), Design Ch:255+73 to Bantwal cross (Existing Km 328+) Design Ch:318+755 section of NH-75 (old NH-48) in the State of Karnataka:

¶112

20

¶113

Request for payment of compensation in respect of land acquired in Sy. No. 128/8B1 of Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada - Reg.

¶114

Ref: 1) Representation dated 09.10.2021 of Sri. M Narayana Pai S/o Late Kogganna Pai, Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk, DK District.

¶115

Representation dated 09.10.2021 of Sri. M Sudhakara Pal S/o Late Kogganna Pai, Mani Village. Bantwal Taluk, DK District.

¶116

Sir.

¶117

Please find herewith a representations cited (1) & (2) above in original with all attachments for ready reference. The letter is addressed to you and a copy of the same is received in this office.

¶118

In this regard, you are requested to look into the captioned issue mentioned in the petition and resolve the issue in accordance with provisions of law, urgently. After taking appropriate action, you are also requested to issue suitable endorsement to the petitioners. A copy of such endorsement may be sent to this office for information.

¶119

Thanking you,

¶120

Yours faithfully. Sd/- 13/10/21

¶121

[Col AK Janbaz (Retd)] GM (Tech) & Project Director PIU-Mangalore”

¶122

The petitioners were asked to keep all the attachments and documents ready for consideration of determination of

¶123

compensation. Thereafter, an endorsement comes to be issued on 18-11-2021. It reads as follows:

¶124

21

¶125

“ಸಂRೆ&:JQೇಷಭೂXಾP�ೕ%ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳT(�ಾ)ಇತAೆವxಸಂRೆ&:18/2020-21. ?%ಾಂಕ:18/11/2021

¶126

xಂಬರಹ

¶127

()

¶128

Jಷಯಃ ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, Jಟ� �ೋಬh, 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821, 128/18 ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ೆ'ಾದ J0�ೕಣ#ದ ಆ{ೇಪeೆ ಬMೆE.

¶129

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ: 1) 3ಾನ& •ಜ%ಾ ��ೇ#ಶಕರು, Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� Bಾ��ಾರ ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಇವರ ಪತ� ಸಂRೆ&: 15.11.2021 (@gmail.com)

¶130

ಸುGಾಕರ Bೈ 2D �ೊಗEಣFBೈ & @�ೕ.ಎಂ.%ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ 2D

¶131

�ೊಗEಣF Bೈ ಇವರ ಅ�# ?%ಾಂಕ::09.10.2021.

¶132

()

¶133

Hೕಲfಂಡ Jಷಯ�ೆf ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ€ಂ�ೆ ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖನ ಪತ�ದ\� �ಾK0ರುವ ಅ�#�ಾರರುಗhMೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ �hಯಪ[ಸುವw�ೇನಂದAೆ , �ೕವwಗಳT 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821, 128/18 ರ\� Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� 75 �ೆf �ೆಚುvವ�'ಾd ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ೆ'ಾದ J0�ೕಣ#ದ\� ಸಂಶಯ ವ&ಕ�ಪ[0 Hೕ�ಾ��ಾ�ಗhMೆ ಮರುಸSೆ# 3ಾ[0�ೊಡyೇ�ೆಂದು �ೋ�ರುವwದು ಸ�ಯŠೆ€. ಈ ಬMೆE ಕNೇ�ಯ\�ರುವ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು, ಪ�@ೕಲ%ೆ 3ಾಡ�ಾd ಭೂ3ಾಪಕರು ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ೆಯ ಬMೆE ತ'ಾ�0ದ ನ{ೆ ಮತು� J0�ೕಣ# ಕ�ಮಬದWSಾdರುತ � ೆ . ಈ ‹ದಲು ನSೆ# ಇ�ಾRೆಯ ಆ�ಾ;ಬಂŒ ಪ��ಾರ 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821ಎ 1.46 ಎಕAೆ ಖುƒf xಡುವh'ಾdದುW, ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/8212 0-40 Xೆಂ•Ž 'ಎ' ಖAಾ2ನ\� �ಾಖ\ರು�ೆ�. ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಇ�ಾRೆ'ಾದ ಆ; 0ಯನು, ಪ�@ೕ\0�ಾಗ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821ಎ 1.86 ಎಕAೆ ಇದುW �ಮIಗಳ �ೆಸ�ನ\�ರುತ **�** ೆ . ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/8212 0.07 Xೆಂ•Ž ಎಂಬುದು �ೊಸ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/822 ಎಂದು ನ{ೆಯ\�ಯು ಮತು� ಆ;0ಯ\� ಬಂ?ರುತ � ೆ . ಈಗ �ೕವw ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/8212 ರ 0.40 Xೆಂ•Ž, ಖAಾಬು J0�ೕಣ# ಸ�ಪ[0�ೊಳcಲು ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಮತು� ಸSೆ# ಇ�ಾRೆಯ ‹Aೆ �ೋd ಭೂ�ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಉಪ��ೇ#ಶಕರು, ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಎ6ಯುಆ; ಅ•ೕಲು ನಂ.68/2019-20 ಆ�ೇಶದನPಯ 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ. 128/821 �ೊಸನಂ.128/17, 128/18, ಎಂದು Bಾ�`ಂa ಆd ದುರXಾ�dರುವwದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ � ೆ .

¶134

�ೕವwಗಳT ಈ ಕNೇ�ಯ\� ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ೆ ಪ�ಕರಣ�ಾfd gೆ . ಎಂ . 0 . ತ'ಾ�0ದ ನಂತರ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಮತು� ಸSೆ# ಇ�ಾRೆಗಳ\� ನ•ೆ0ದ ನಡವh�ೆಯ ಬMೆE ಈ ಕNೇ� ಗಮನ�ೆf ತರ�ೆ �ೊಸ�ಾd Bಾ�`ಂa 3ಾ[0�ೊಂ[ರುವ �ಾರಣ ಈ �ೕ� ವ&�ಾ&ಸSಾdರುವwದು Hೕ�ೊ,ೕಟ�ೆf ಕಂಡುಬರುತ� ೆೆೆೆ . ಆದW�ಂದ ಈ ಕNೇ�bಂದ ಮರುಸSೆ# �ಾಯ# 3ಾ[ಸಲು ಉ�ೆWೕ@ಸ�ಾd�ೆ ಮರು ಸSೆ#

¶135

22

¶136

?%ಾಂಕವನು, �ಮMೆ ಮುಂ‘ತSಾd �hಸ�ಾಗುವwದು , ಮರುಸSೆ# ನಂತರ ಈ ಕNೇ�bಂದ ಅಗತ&JದW\� ಸೂಕ� ಕ�ಮ�ೈMೊಳc�ಾಗುವwದು ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ �ಮMೆ �h0�ೆ .”

¶137

(Emphasis added)

¶138

It was indicated that the grievance of the petitioners was being looked into. A notice then comes to be issued on 25-04-2022 which reads as follows:

¶139

“ಸಂRೆ&:/ಎ6ಎ_ಎಒ/ಎD�ೆ“ಎಐ/�ೆ“ಎ6ಎD/ಇತAೆ -8/2022-23 ?%ಾಂಕ:25/04/2022

¶140

�ಳTವh�ೆ ಪತ�

¶141

Jಷಯಃ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW�-75 ರ ಅಡ•�ೊ–ೆbಂದ ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾ�6 Aೋ— (Bಾ&�ೇ˜-II) J]ಾಗದ\� ರXೆ� ಅಗ\ೕಕರಣ ಮತು� ಚತುಷ™ಥ ರXೆ� ಅ›ವೃ?|Mಾd ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ. ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ-ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/18 ಮತು� 128/821 ರ\�ನ �ೆಚುvವ� ಜ�ೕ�Mೆ ಪ��ಾರ �ೕಡುವ ಕು�ತು.

¶142

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖಃ 1) ಈ ಕNೇ� ಸSೆ#ಯ; ವರ? ?%ಾಂಕ:25.04.2022.

¶143

�ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ&:S.O.2962(E) ?%ಾಂಕ:01-09.2020.

¶144

()

¶145

Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� 75 ರ ಅಡ•�ೊ–ೆbಂದ ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾ�6 Aೋ—ವAೆdನ J]ಾಗದ\� ಭೂXಾP�ೕನಪ[ಸಲು �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರವw ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ& : S.O.2962(E) ?%ಾಂಕ :01-09.2020 ರಂ�ೆ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0ದುW , ಸ?� ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆಯ\� ಒಳMೊಂ[ದW , 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/ 2 2 & (128/8 2 1 ಹ–ೇ ನಂ .) ರ\�ನ 324 ಚದರ �ೕಟ; ಖುƒf ಜ�ೕನು ಮತು� ಕಟ€ಡಗhMೆ ಈMಾಗ�ೇ ಅSಾ—# . ಆdದುW , ಅSಾ—#ನಂ�ೆ ರೂ .11,61,932 ಗಳನು, ಈ ಕNೇ�bಂದ RTGS ಮೂಲಕ �ಮMೆ BಾJಸ�ಾdರುತ� ೆೆೆೆ .

¶146

3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ\� �ಮMೆ Xೇ�ದ �ಮI ಜ�ೕನು ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/82l (ಹ–ೇ ನಂ.128/82ಎ) ರ\� ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0ದ ನಂತರ ಇ��ೕ‘Mೆ ದುರ0�'ಾdದುW, ಅದರಂ�ೆ �ಮMೆ ಪ��ಾರ �ೕ[ರುವ ಜ�ೕ�dಂತ ಅ�ಕ J0�ೕಣ#ದ ಜ�ೕನು ಭೂXಾP�ೕನSಾdರುವw�ಾd �h0,

¶147

23

¶148

�ೕವw ಸ\�0ದW ಅ�#ಯನು, ಪ�ಗK0 ನಮI ಕNೇ� ಸSೆ#ಯ; ರವರು ವರ? ಸ\�0ರು�ಾ�Aೆ. ಅವರ ವರ?ಯಂ�ೆ �ೆಚುvವ�'ಾd ಭೂXಾP�ೕನSಾdರುವ, 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ �ಮI ಜ�ನು ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821 ರ\� ಅಂ�ಾಜು 384 ಚದರ �ೕಟ; J0�ೕಣ#ದ ಖುƒf ಜ�ೕನು yಾಬು� ಸೂಕ� ಕ�ಮ �ೈMೊಂಡು @ೕಘ�Sಾd ಅSಾ—# ಅಥSಾ ಒ=™Mೆ ಅSಾ—# 3ಾ[ ಪ��ಾರ Bಾವ � ಸ�ಾಗುವwದು ಆದW�ಂದ �ೕವw Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� �ಾಮMಾ�Mೆ 'ಾವw�ೇ ಅಡಚeೆ 3ಾಡ�ೆ, ಜ�ೕ�ನ\� �ಾಮMಾ� 3ಾಡಲು ಅನುಕೂಲ 3ಾ[�ೊಡyೇ�ಾd Jನಂ�0�ೆ.

¶149

JQೇಷ ಭೂXಾP�ೕ%ಾ��ಾ� ಮತು� ಸUಮ Bಾ��ಾರ ]ಾರ�ೕಯ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� Bಾ��ಾರ Aಾ.�ೆ .75(48)�ಾಸನ, 2.0.Aೋ— J]ಾಗ, �ಾಸನ”

¶150

It was indicated that suitable award or consent award would be passed if the petitioners would agree and that the petitioners should not stop the work that is happening. To both the petitioners’ identical notices were issued. The petitioners were under the impression that utilised land would be granted appropriate compensation, as the endorsement clearly indicates work should not be stopped pending determination of enhancement of compensation. Though compensation was not enhanced, the work gets completed.

¶151

24

¶152

8.3. A representation then is submitted by the petitioners on

¶153

08-04-2025 which reads as follows:

“Date:08.04.2025

R.P.A.D.

From,

M.Sudhakar Pai Advocate- High Court, S/o. Late. M.Kogganna Pai No. 1080, 1^st Floor, 12^th Cross, Kodandaramapuram, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003.

¶158

M.Narayana Pai S/o. Late. M.Kogganna Pai, Marchant, P.O. MANI-574253 Bantwal Taluk. (DK)

¶159

To,

¶160

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, National Highway -75, Hassan-B.C.Road Division, No.HIG-64, D.T.D.C. Courier Office Building, 1^st Floor, K.H.B.Colony, Channapattana, Opp. New K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶161

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, P.I.U. Mangaluru, Door No.3-29, "Bethel" Tharethota, Near Pumpwell(NH-66) Mangaluru-575002(DK).

¶162

Dear Sirs,

¶163

25

¶164

Sub: Our Representation requesting you to pass Awards and give compensation in respect of our lands, i.e. Sy.No.128/8B1[measuring 384 Sq.Mtrs.] belonging to No.1 among us and Sy.No.128/18 [measuring Sq.Mtrs.] belonging to No.2 among us, both in Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk, which lands notified for acquisition for widening of Mangaluru-Bengaluru National Highway.

¶165

Ref: (1) Your Office Endorsement dtd:25.04.2022, in No./SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-8/2022-23.

¶166

(2) Your Office Endorsement dtd:25.04.2022, in No./SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-7/2022-23.

¶167

¶168

With reference to the above subject, your kind attention is drawn as hereunder;

¶169

Sy.No. 128 measuring 1-86 Acres of Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk (DK), is our absolute Varga properties inherited from our parents, by virtue of a registered Partition Deed of the year 1997. In the said property, an extent of 1-26 Acres belongs to No.1 among us and an extent of 0-60 cents belongs to No.2 among us, as acquired by us in the said registered Partition Deed of the year 1997.

¶170

As regards the land belonging to No.1 among us, though you have acquired land measuring 708 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No. 128/8B1, you had awarded compensation for only 324 Sq.Mtrs of land i.e. Rs. 11,61,932/-.

¶171

So also, as regards land belonging to No.2 among us, though you had acquired a land measuring 425 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.128/18, you have awarded compensation of Rs.35,44,159/- towards building alone and not the land as such.

¶172

In this background, we have approached the D.D.L.R., Mangaluru for re-plotting the said lands. The D.D.L.R. has replotted the lands by showing 1-26 Acre of land in Sy.No.128/18

¶173

26

¶174

as that of No.1 among us and 0-60 cents of land in Sy.No.128/8B1 as that of No.2 among us.

¶175

Thereafter, we had given individual representations dtd:09.10.2021 to both of you, annexing all the relevant documents.

¶176

Adverting to it, the Project Director, N.H.A.I., i.e. No.2 among you, has written to the Special L.A.O., i.e. No.1 among you, on 13.10.2021 to resolve the issue.

¶177

Thereafter, No.1 among you, has given us an endorsement dtd:18.11.2021 stating that your survey officials will resurvey the land and do the needful. In fact, in the resurvey conducted by your officials, they had reported to you that in fact you have acquired more land than the extent of land for which you have awarded compensation to both of us.

¶178

As such, you have issued two separate endorsement to us dtd:25.04.2022 [under Ref. Nos. 1 & 2] wherein you have assured No.1 among us that you will pass an award for 384 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.128/8B1 and assured No.2 among us that you will pass an award to an extent of 425 Sq.Mtrs. in Sy.No.128/18 and also requesting both of us to surrender the said lands in question to enable you to carry out the expansion of National Highway, without any sort of obstruction.

¶179

Believing in your words and anticipating passing of two awards in our favour at the earliest, we have surrendered our respective lands voluntarily for your project.

¶180

Thereafter, again, you have, on 01.12.2023, sought clarification from D.D.L.R. Mangaluru. The DDLR Mangaluru after concurrence from the ADLR, Bantwal, has reported to you, by his correspondence dtd: 14.05.2024, positively in favour of us, with reference to his order of re-plotting of the said lands.

¶181

Thereafter, you have sought Joint Measurement Certificate from ADLR, Bantwal, who in turn, has submitted it to you to enable you to pass awards.

¶182

Despite all that, till date you have failed to pass awards in respect of our lands, as promised by you.

¶183

27

¶184

We have been constantly approaching you in this regard.

¶185

For the reasons best known to you, you have failed to pass awards and give compensation to us, till date.

¶186

Acquisition of the lands in question is made by you in the year 2021, your endorsement giving assurance to us to pass awards is of the year 2022. Till date, there is no endeavor on your part to pass awards in our favour.

¶187

Our lands in question are commercial lands which are already converted. Acquisition made by you, is in the year 2021. Keeping all these factors in mind, you are hereby requested to pass awards and give compensation to both of us in respect of 384 Sq.Mtrs in Sy.No.128/8B1 of Mani Village, pertaining to No.1 among us and in respect of 425 Sq.Mtrs. in Sy.No.128/18 of Mani Village pertaining to No.2 among us, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this representation, failing which, we will be constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking appropriate direction to you, in this regard, at your own risk as to all costs and consequences ensuing therefrom. Please Note.

¶188

Thanking you,

¶189

Yours faithfully, Sd/(M.Sudhakar Pai) No.1 among us for himself and also on behalf of No.2” This is met by an endorsement on 02-05-2025. The said endorsement reads as follows:

¶190

“ಸಂRೆ&::SLAO/NHAI/ ಅSಾ—#/ [�ೆ.22 2/ 3ಾK/2024-25

?%ಾಂಕ: 02/05/2025

xಂಬರಹ

28

Jಷಯಃ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW�-75 ರ\� (48) ರ\� ರXೆ� ಅ›ವೃ?|/ಚತುಷ™ಥ ರXೆ�Mಾd 3ಾK ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821 ಮತು� ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/18 ರ\�ನ ಜ�ೕ�Mೆ ಪ��ಾರ �ೋ� �ೕವw ಸ\�0ರುವ ಅ�# ?%ಾಂಕ:11.04.2025.

¶195

ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖಃ 1) �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ 3A(1) ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ6.ಓ.2265(E) ?%ಾಂಕ: 07.07.2020.

¶196

�ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ 3[ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ6.ಓ.2962(ಇ) ?%ಾಂಕ:01.09.2020.

¶197

�ೕವw ಈಕNೇ�Mೆ ಕಳTx0ರುವ ಮನJ ?%ಾಂಕ:11.04.2025

¶198

()

¶199

Hೕ\ನ Jಷಯ�ೆf ಸಂಬಂ�0ದಂ�ೆ , ಈ ಮೂಲಕ �ಮMೆ �hಸುವw�ೇನಂದAೆ , ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ ��ೆ�, ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/8212 ರ\� 809 ಚದರ �ೕಟ; (20 Xೆಂ•Ž) ಸ�ಾ#� ಖAಾ¡ ಜ�ೕ�ನ ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ಾfd ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (1) ಮತು� 2 ರಂ�ೆ �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರವw ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0ರುತ � ೆ . ಸದ� ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆಯ\� ಭೂXಾP�ೕನ�ೆf ಉ�ೆWೕ@ತ ಜ�ೕನು ಸ�ಾ#� ಖAಾಬು ಜ�ೕನು ಆdರುವwದ�ಂದ ಅSಾ—# 3ಾಡುSಾಗ ಸದ� ಜ�ೕ�Mೆ ಪ��ಾರ �ೕಡಲು ಅವ�ಾಶJಲ�SಾದW�ಂದ ಪ��ಾರ�ೆf ಪ�ಗK0ಲ�.

¶200

ಪ�ಸು�ತ �ೕವw ಸದ� ಜ�ೕ�ನ ದುರ0� 3ಾ[0�ೊಂ[ದುW ಸದ� ಜ�ೕನು ಈಗ Rಾಸd ಜ�ೕ%ಾdರುವwದ�ಂದ ಪ��ಾರ �ೕಡyೇ�ೆಂದು ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖದ ಮನJಯ\� �ೋ�ರು��ೕ� . 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ .128/8 2 1 2 �ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ .128/8 2 1 ರ\� 384 ಚದರ�ೕಟ; ಎಂ . ಸುGಾಕರ Bೈ 2D �ೇ• �ೊಗEಣFBೈ ಎಂಬ �ಮMೆ Xೇ�ದುW ಅ�ೇ �ೕ� �ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ .128/18 ರ\� 425 ಚದರ �ೕಟ; ಎಂ %ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ 2D �ೊಗE¢ಣ Bೈ ಇವ�Mೆ Xೇ�ರುವw�ಾd �h0 ಸ?� ಜ�ೕ�Mೆ ಪ��ಾರ �ೕಡyೇ�ಾd ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (3) ರ ತಮI ಪತ�ದ\� �ೋ�ರು��ೕ� .

¶201

ಈ ಬMೆE ಈ ಕNೇ�ಯ\� �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು, ಪ�@ೕ\0ದುW , ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ (1) ಮತು� (2) ರಂ�ೆ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� �ಾZW 1951 ರ ಕಲಂ 3 ಎ (1) ಮತು� 3 [ �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0ದುW , ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆಯಂ�ೆ ಸ�ಾ#� ಖAಾಬು ಎಂದು ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆಯ\� ಪ�ಕಟSಾdರುತ� ೆೆೆೆ . �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ನಂತರ �ೕವw ಸದ� ಜ�ೕ�ನ ದುರ0� 3ಾ[0�ೊಂ[ದುW , 3 [ (1) ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ನಂತರ MRT127/2021-22 ?%ಾಂಕ :08.02.2022 ರಂ�ೆ �ಮI �ೆಸ�Mೆ �ಾಗೂ MRT130/2021-22

¶202

29

¶203

?%ಾಂಕ :08.02.2022 ರಂ�ೆ ಎಂ %ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ �ೆಸ�Mೆ ದುರ0�ಯಂ�ೆ Rಾ�ೆ'ಾdರುವwದು �ಾಖ�ೆಗhಂದ ಕಂಡುಬರುತ� ೆೆೆೆ .

¶204

Hೕ�ೆ Jವ�0ದಂ�ೆ �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� �ಾZW 1956 ರ ಕಲಂ 3ಎ(1) ರಂ�ೆ Bಾ�ಥ�ಕ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ನಂತರ ?%ಾಂಕ:01.09.2020 ರಂ�ೆ 3[ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0ದುW, Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� �ಾZW ಕಲಂ 3[(2) ರಂ�ೆ ಸದ� ಪ�ಕಟeೆ ?%ಾಂಕ?ಂದ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆಯ\� ಒಳMೊಂ[ರುವ ಬಂLಾPಳ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 3ಾK Mಾ�ಮದ ಹ–ೆ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/8212 (�ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821 ಮತು� 128/18)ರ\� ಒಟು€ 809 ಚದರ �ೕಟ; ಜ�ೕನು �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ ಸುಪ?#Mೆ (Vest absolutely in the central Government) ಬಂ?ರುತ � ೆ . �ೕವw �ೇಂದ� ಸ�ಾ#ರದ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ ನಂತರ ದುರ0� 3ಾ[0 Rಾ�ೆ 3ಾ[0�ೊಂ[ರು��ೕ� ಆದW�ಂದ ಈ ಹಂತದ\� �ಮI �ೋ��ೆಯನು, ಪ�ಗKಸಲು �ಾನೂ�ನ\� ಅವ�ಾಶJರುವw?ಲ� ಅಲ � ೆ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ �ೆ�ಾW� �ಾZW 1956 ರ\� ಒHI 3[ ಅ�ಸೂಚ%ೆ �ೊರ[0, ತದನಂತರ '['%ೋ`•�ೇಷD 3ಾಡಲು ಅವ�ಾಶJರುವw?ಲ� ಈ Hೕ\ನ ಅಂಶಗhಂದ �ಮI ಮನJಯನು, ಪ�ಗKಸಲು ಅಸ™ದJಲ� ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನು, ಈ ಮೂಲಕ �ಮI ಗಮನ�ೆf ತರ�ಾd�ೆ .”

¶205

(Emphasis added)

¶206

The endorsement indicates that mutation entries indicate that replotting of lands of the petitioners had taken place on 8-02-2022 long after the final notification being issued and, therefore, enhancement of compensation cannot be considered and the compensation for the other portion which is said to be kharab, will not be granted.

¶207

8.4. What would unmistakably emerge from what is quoted hereinabove is, that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired beyond the extent found in the notification and compensation is now denied on a particular score that replotting of land has taken

¶208

30

¶209

place, long after the notification was issued. Yes, a perusal at the date on which the mutation entry was changed does indicate that mutation entry was done long after issuance of final notification. However, the fact remains different. Order of DDLR is noted hereinabove. 28-02-2020 is the date on which DDLR allows the appeal filed in Appeal No.68 of 2019-20 which is five months before the preliminary notification for acquisition. Therefore, the NHAI has acquired the lands after replotting was done.

¶210

8.5. While it may be the fact that mutation entry had taken place at a later point in time; that would not mean that replotting order would begin from 2022. The replotting was being done pursuant to the order passed by Competent Authority. The endorsement quoted supra of NHAI accepts this fact with the assurance that appropriate steps would be taken to redetermine compensation by passing award or consent award. Now, by the impugned endorsement, NHAI has done a volte face, which cannot be countenanced. The endorsement is further fortified by the averment in the statement of objections. The statement of objections at paras 15 to 20 read as follows:

¶211

31

¶212

“…. …. …..

¶213

With regard to the averments contained in paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 the same are formal in nature and matter of record, therefore requires no traversing.

¶214

With regard to the averments contained in Paragraph 4, the same is a matter of record. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the DDLR vide order dated 28.02.2020, directed the ADLR to issue notice to all the interested persons before executing the re-plotting In terms of the said order, however, the ADLR has failed to issue such notice to the Respondents.

¶215

With regard to the averments contained in Paragraph 5 the same is baseless, devoid of merits and therefore denied. It is submitted that in terms of 3A notification and subsequent 3D notification dated 07.07.2020 and 01.09.2020, respectively, the private land to an extent of 324 Sq. Mtrs in Sy No. 128/B1A and the Government Kharab land to an extent of 809 Sq. Mtrs in Sy no. 128/B1B has been acquired. Further, since the notified land in Sy no. 128/B1B is Government Kharab land, there is no provision for consideration of the grant of compensation for Government land.

¶216

With regard to the averments contained in paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 the same are formal in nature and matter of record, therefore requires no traversing.

¶217

With regard to the averments contained in Para No.9 & 10, the same are matter of record. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the endorsement issued by the competent authority cannot be construed as an order and as such, it fails to establish or substantiate the petitioners' entitlement to compensation. In the present case, where the land acquired in Sy no. 128/B1B is a government kharab land, which, by its very nature, does not confer any rights upon the petitioners to claim compensation in that regard. It is further submitted that the difference in the area of land, as claimed by the petitioners, is a result of replotting of land in Sy no. 128/B1B that have taken place subsequent to the issuance of notifications under

¶218

32

¶219

Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, which renders such claims untenable in law.

¶220

With regard to the averments contained in Para No.11, the same is a matter of record. Without prejudice, any contention made thereunder is denied as devoid of merits.

¶221

With regard to the averments contained in Para No.12 & 13, the same are devoid of merits and thereby denied. It is submitted that the DDLR, in his letter, has not provided any opinion or recommendation to consider the notified government kharab land as private land. Further, the DDLR's letter does not substantiate for reclassifying the government kharab land, into private property. As per the provisions of the National Highways Act, the nature/status of the land as on the date of 3A notification is considered for the purpose of determination of compensation.”

¶222

Here again the objections confirm to the endorsement containing two things viz., replotting is done after the preliminary notification and replotting happens without prior permission of the NHAI. The endorsement and the objections if read in tandem, the least one can say is, it is preposterous.

¶223

8.6. Perhaps the petitioners could not imagine that their lands would be acquired five months in future to the order of replotting so as to take the permission of the NHAI. Such frivolous objections are taken to deny compensation to the land owners whose lands have admittedly been utilised and compensation denied. Faced with an

¶224

33

¶225

identical question, this Court in the case of HEERA J SHETTY @

¶226

VANITHA J SHETTY v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER² , has held as follows:

¶227

11. The aforesaid is clearly indicative of the fact that, in the land of the petitioners, the NHAI have done the drainage work, footpath and also installation of lights. The communication is not denied by the respondents, but the justification is that, this has skipped from acquisition and therefore, it should be acquired, by way of compulsory purchase. The representation of the petitioners further is that, they are not wanting to sell the property, but the compensation to be paid, in terms of the law. This is again denied by respondent No.1 holding that as per the site condition, the remaining portion of the land, the acquisition authority will proceed on requirement basis, and was directed to submit a purchase proposal, through consent of the petitioners.

¶228

12. As observed hereinabove, these documents are enough circumstance to come to conclusion that the land of the petitioners has been utilized by laying a drainage, footpath and the street lights. The communication further is that, this land ought to have been the subject matter of acquisition, but it has become the subject matter of utilization, which cannot but be termed to be illegal utilization of a private property of a citizen.

¶229

13. It would not behove the status of the National Highway Authority of India, to utilise a land and come before the Court and contend that they have not utilised the land of the petitioners and in future, if they want, they would utilise the land by compulsory purchase. This is sans countenance.

¶230

2 W.P.No.14786 of 2025 decided on 16-09-2025

¶231

34

¶232

14. In the light of the property of the petitioners being snatched away by utilisation without paying any compensation, the petition deserves to succeed. The endorsement dated 25.07.2022, stands quashed.

¶233

15. The respondents - National Highway Authority of India is direct calculate compensation, for utilising 0.07.39 cents without initiating any acquisition proceedings, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

¶234

(Emphasis supplied)

¶235

This Court was dealing with an identical circumstance where land

¶236

had been utilized without payment of compensation by the NHAI and had directed that they would acquire the utilized land according to their need or ask the land owner for compulsory purchase of the land. The contentions were repelled and compensation was directed. In the light of the admitted fact of acquisition of land of the petitioners beyond what was notified, compensation cannot be denied. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed with a consequent direction to pay compensation. The issue is accordingly answered.

¶237

35

¶238

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: -

¶239

O R D E R

¶240

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶241

(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to determine the amount of compensation to the utilized lands of the petitioners in accordance with law, by passing suitable award and pay to these petitioners the said amount within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶242

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶243

Bkp CT:MJ

Sri M Sudhakar Pai v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Sudhakar Pai v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dhanalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahimahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Rays Power Infra Limited Vs Directorate General of Trade Remedies

Mr Sudarshan Vs State by

Sri. Prabhudev K B Vs the State of Karnataka