Karnataka High Court
Ramachandra Parameshwar Hegde vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.79698/2013 &
79791-807/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. RAMACHANDRA PARAMESHWAR HEGDE
S/O. PARAMESHWAR HEGDE
AGE: 63 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, TQ: KUMTA.
2. MR. SHREEPAD NAGA BHAT
S/O NAGA BHAT
AGE: 71 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
3. MR. PARAMESHWAR ANANT KADEKODI
S/O ANANT KADEKODI
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
4. MS. PADMAKALA KRISHNA BHAGWAT
W/O KRISHNA BHAGWAT
AGE: 59 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
5. MR. ANANT HAMMAYYA PATAGAR
S/O HAMMAYYA PATAGAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
2
6. MR. VISHNU ANANT KADEKODI
S/O ANANT PATAGAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
7. MR. ANANT PARAMESHWAR KADEKODI
S/O PARAMESHWAR KADEKODI
AGE: 78 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
8. MRS. SUDHABAI ANANT KADEKODI
W/O ANANT C KADEKODI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
9. MRS. NAGVENI MANJUNATH BHAT
W/O MANJUNATH BHAT,
AGE: 65 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
10. MR. GAJANAN ANANT KADEKODI
S/O ANANT KADEKODI
AGE: 51 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
11. MR. PRASHANT LAXMAN PRABHU
S/O LAXMAN PRABHU,
AGE: 50 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
12. MS. SHILPA PRASHANT PRABHU
W/O PRASHANTH PRABHU
AGE: 44 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
13. MR. JAIRAM RAMAKRISHNA BHAT
S/O RAMAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
3
14. MR. SHANKAR GOPALKRISHNA KADEKODI
S/O GOPALKRISHNA KADEKODI
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
15. MR. DATTATRAYA PARAMESHWAR KADEKODI
S/O PARAMESHWAR KADEKODI
AGE: 62 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
16. MR. VENKATACHALA N BHAT
S/O NARAYAN BHAT,
AGE: 83 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
17. MR. DEEPAK ANANT KADEKODI
S/O ANANT KADEKODI
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/AT: KADEKODI,
P.O. DHARESHWAR, KUMTA.
18. MR. GANAPATI PARAMESHWAR BHAGWAT
S/O PARAMESHWARA BHAT
AGE: 48 YEARS, R/AT: HANDIGONE,
KUMTA TALUK.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURESH N KINI, ADV.)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISGTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORT BHAVAN
1, PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI-110 001.
(R/BY ITS SECRETARY)
2. NATIONAL HGIHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
OFFICE AT G 5 & 6M SECTOR -10,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075.
4
3. IRB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED
IRB COMPLEX, CHANDIVLI FARM,
CHANDIVLI VILLAGE, ANDHERI (E),
MUMBAI - 400 072.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUIAISITION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY-NHAI
13-1-7E, NEAR PWD DIVISION OFFICE KITTYUR
CHENNAMMA ROAD,
AJJARAKOD, UDUPI - 576 101.
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BEACH ROAD, KARWAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M B KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. SACHIN S MAGADUM, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4,
SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R5 AND R6)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARING THAT THE 2nd AND 3rd RESPONDENT OR
THEIR CONTRACTORS, AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING
UNDER THEM HAVE NO AUTHORITY VESTED UNDER THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 OR THE NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY ACT, 1988 OR ANY LAW FOR THE
TIME BEING FORCE ENTER THE PREMISES OF THE
PETITONERS AND/OR CARRYOUT SURVEY, DIGGING,
TRENCHING, MARKING OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with, since it is only a formal party.
Petitioners are the permanent residents of Kadekodi Village, Kumta Taluk, Uttar Kannada District. On account of a survey conducted on the petitioners' lands, apprehending that, without acquisition of the property, the respondents would enter upon their' properties and damage the same i.e., without recourse to due process of law, these writ petitions were filed, seeking various reliefs.
2. Sri Sachin S. Magadum, learned advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 4 submitted that an acquisition Notification having not been issued and the petitioners' properties having not been acquired, respondents 2 and 4 or any person claiming through them would not do any activity on the lands in question, detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. He submitted that in case the petitioners' properties are required for public purpose, action in accordance with law would be taken for their acquisition.
6
3. Heard learned Advocates on both sides and perused the writ records.
4. Mere conducting of survey by the public authorities, for public purpose, cannot be objected to by the petitioners. If a public project is under contemplation and in that regard, if survey work was done and markings are made, the same cannot be taken exception to by the petitioners, since no damage was done to their properties. Undeniably, as on date, no part of the petitioners' properties have been made use of by the respondents, for execution of any public project. If necessary, for implementation of any public project, which is under contemplation, it is open for the respondents to conduct the survey, without causing actual damage to the properties of the petitioners.
In view of the foregoing and the submissions made by Sri Sachin S. Magadum, noticed supra, there being no crystallised cause of action, it is unnecessary for the petitioners to prosecute these writ petitions. 7
However, Respondents 2 and 4, shall act in terms of the submissions made by their learned advocate and subject to the observations made supra.
Keeping open all the contentions raised in the writ petitions, in case a need were to arise at a later date for seeking reliefs, if any, these writ petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE sac*