Karnataka High Court
Sri M Sudhakar Pai vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 8 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15919 OF 2025 (LA - RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI M.SUDHAKAR PAI
S/O LATE M.KOGGANNA PAI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ADVOCATE-HIGH COURT,
NO.1080, 1ST FLOOR,
12TH CROSS,
KODANDARAMAPURAM,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2 . SRI M.NARAYANA PAI
S/O LATE M.KOGGANNA PAI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
P.O. MANI - 574 253
BANTWAL TALUK (D.K.)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
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,
1ST 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)
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.)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BIDAN CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PADMANABHA HOLLA S., ADVOCATE)
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
3
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 DTD-
25.04.2022 (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-7/2022-
23 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.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
endorsement dated 02-05-2025 issued by the 1st 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.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
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
5
Sy.No.128/8B1A measuring 1 acre 26 cents comes to the share of
the 1st petitioner and land in Sy.No.128/8B1B measuring 60 cents
comes to the share of the 2nd petitioner.
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 non-
agriculture land, whereas the land in Sy.No.128/8B1B was
categorized as Government kharab in the said notification. The
6
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.
2.3. The 1st 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.
2.4. The 1st respondent/SLAO sought to resolve the dispute
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
7
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 1st 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, 1st petitioner is entitled for a compensation
of the remaining land to an extent of 384 sq. mtrs. and 2nd
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.
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.
8
3. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri Bidan Chandra, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. 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.
9
5. 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.
6. 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:-
10
(i) Whether the writ petition would be maintainable in the
teeth of alternative remedy available under Section
3G(5) of the Act?
(ii) Whether the impugned endorsement suffers from non-
application of mind and the petitioners would become
entitled to enhanced compensation for the lands
acquired?
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the writ petition would be maintainable in the
teeth of alternative remedy available under Section 3G(5) of
the Act?
7. 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:
"3-G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation:
... ... ...
(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."
11
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:
".... .... ....
Point (b):
40. We shall next consider point (b) which is as under:
"(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?"
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
1
2023 SCC OnLine P & H 7228
12
a clause is not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by High Courts.
42. In Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., the petitioner's dealership was terminated by the
respondent-Corporation for an irrelevant and non-
existent 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.
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".
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 India17 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
13
Article 226 of the Constitution can be granted. It quoted
the following passage in ABL International (17 supra):
"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
Marks18.) 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."
(emphasis supplied)
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.
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.
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.
14
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
15
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
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.
16
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the impugned endorsement suffers from non-
application of mind and the petitioners would become
entitled to enhanced compensation for the lands acquired?
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:
" ಾ ಾ ಯವರ ಾಂ ಕ ಸ ಾಯಕರು ಾಗೂ ಪದ ತ ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಉಪ ೇ#ಶಕರ %ಾ&'ಾಲಯ, ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ ೆ, ಮಂಗಳ/ರು.
ಉಪ01ತರು: 2. ೆ.ಕುಸು3ಾಧರ, ೆ. .ಎ6
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
3ಾK BೇLೆ, 3ಾK Mಾ ಮ ಮತು ಅಂNೆ, ಬಂLಾPಳ ಾಲೂಕು
17
ಮತು
1. ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ ೇ#ಶಕರು
ಭೂ3ಾಪನ ಭೂ3ಾಪನ QಾRೆ, ಬಂLಾPಳ ಪ Sಾ?ಗಳT
2. ಪ'ಾ#SೇUಕರು, ಭೂ3ಾಪನ QಾRೆ, ಬಂLಾPಳ
3. ತಹ@ೕ ಾWರರು ಬಂLಾPಳ
ಪ Xಾವ%ೆ:
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.
HೕಲIನJ ಾರರು ಾಜರುಪ[0ದ ಪjರಕ ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು, ಪ @ೕ\ಸ ಾd, ಬಂLಾPಳ
ಾಲೂಕು 3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.128/821 ರ\ 1.86 ಎ ೆ ಸ1ಳJದುW ದXಾSೇಜು ಸಂRೆ& 36/88.89
ರಂ ೆ HೕಲIನJ ಾರರ ಮತು ಅವರ ತಂ ೆಯವ Mೆ ಜಂ`'ಾd ಬಂ?ರುತ ೆ. ನಂತರದ\ ?%ಾಂಕ:
24.05.1997 ರ\ ದXಾSೇಜು 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.
18
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 ಸೂಕSೆಂದು ಮನಗಂಡು ಈ ೆಳdನಂ ೆ ಆ ೇಶ 3ಾ[ ೆ.
ಆ ೇಶ
ಪ Xಾವ%ೆಯ\ Jವ 0ದ ಾರಣಗhಂ ಾd HೕಲIನJಯನು, ಪwರಸf 0 ೆ.ೆ
ಾ ಾ ಯವರ ಾಂ ಕ ಸ ಾಯಕರು ಾಗೂ ಪದ ತ ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಉಪ ೇ#ಶಕರು,
ೇ#ಶಕರು
( ೆಚುvವ ಪ ]ಾರ)
]ಾರ ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ ೆ ಮಂಗಳ/ರು,
ಮಂಗಳ/ರು 2. ೆ.ಕುಸು3ಾಧರ
ೆ ಕುಸು3ಾಧರ ಆದ %ಾನು ಕ%ಾ#ಟಕ
ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ ಾZW 1964ರ
ರ ಕಲಂ 49(ಎ
ಎ) ಮತು 25 ರ ಅ[ಯ\ ದತSಾದ ಅ ಾರವನು,
ಉಪ•ೕd0 ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ ೇ#ಶಕರು ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಉಪJ]ಾಗ ಇವರ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ&
ಎ.ಎ_.
ಎ_.ಎD /107/73.74 ರಂ ೆ ಸ.
ಸ.ನಂ 128/8821 ರ\ 128/8 21ಎ
21ಎ ಮತು 128/82
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 ೆ.ೆ
ಈ ಆ ೇಶವನು, ಉಕ ೇಖನ ೕ[ ಪ ಷf 0 ಈ ?ನ ?%ಾಂಕ:
?%ಾಂಕ 28.02.2020 ರಂದು ಮುಕ
%ಾ&'ಾಲಯದ\ ಬxರಂಗSಾd ‚ೂೕƒ0 ೆ."
ೆ."
(Emphasis added)
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
19
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.
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:
"No.:17016/1/2021/PIU(Mingir)/ 217 13th Oct 2021
TO
The Competent Authority &
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Hassan.
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:
20
- Request for payment of compensation in respect of land
acquired in Sy. No. 128/8B1 of Mani Village, Bantwal
Taluk, Dakshina Kannada - Reg.
Ref: 1) Representation dated 09.10.2021 of Sri. M Narayana
Pai S/o Late Kogganna Pai, Mani Village, Bantwal Taluk,
DK District.
2) Representation dated 09.10.2021 of Sri. M Sudhakara
Pal S/o Late Kogganna Pai, Mani Village. Bantwal Taluk,
DK District.
Sir.
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.
2. 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.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully.
Sd/- 13/10/21
[Col AK Janbaz (Retd)]
GM (Tech) & Project Director
PIU-Mangalore"
The petitioners were asked to keep all the attachments and
documents ready for consideration of determination of
compensation. Thereafter, an endorsement comes to be issued on
18-11-2021. It reads as follows:
21
"ಸಂRೆ&:JQೇಷಭೂXಾP ೕ%ಾ ಾ ಗಳT( ಾ)ಇತAೆವxಸಂRೆ&:18/2020-21. ?%ಾಂಕ:18/11/2021
xಂಬರಹ
***()***
Jಷಯಃ ಬಂLಾPಳ ಾಲೂಕು, Jಟ ೋಬh, 3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821,
128/18 ಭೂXಾP ೕನ ೆ'ಾದ J0ೕಣ#ದ ಆ{ೇಪeೆ ಬMೆE.
ಉ ೇಖ: 1) 3ಾನ& •ಜ%ಾ ೇ#ಶಕರು, Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ ೆ ಾW Bಾ ಾರ
ಮಂಗಳ/ರು ಇವರ ಪತ ಸಂRೆ&: 15.11.2021 (@gmail.com)
2) ಸುGಾಕರ Bೈ 2D ೊಗEಣFBೈ & @ ೕ.ಎಂ.%ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ 2D
ೊಗEಣF Bೈ ಇವರ ಅ # ?%ಾಂಕ::09.10.2021.
***()***
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 J0ೕಣ#ದ\ ಸಂಶಯ ವ&ಕಪ[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 J0ೕಣ# 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 J0ೕಣ#
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 ದುರXಾdರುವwದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ ೆ.
ೕವwಗಳT ಈ ಕNೇ ಯ\ ಭೂXಾP ೕನ ೆ ಪ ಕರಣ ಾfd gೆ.ಎಂ
gೆ ಎಂ.0
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#
22
?%ಾಂಕವನು, ಮMೆ ಮುಂ'ತSಾd hಸ ಾಗುವwದು,
ಾಗುವwದು ಮರುಸSೆ# ನಂತರ ಈ ಕNೇ bಂದ
ಅಗತ&JದW\ ಸೂಕ ಕ ಮ ೈMೊಳc ಾಗುವwದು ಎಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಮMೆ h0 ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)
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:
"ಸಂRೆ&:/ಎ6ಎ_ಎಒ/ಎD ೆ"ಎಐ/ ೆ"ಎ6ಎD/ಇತAೆ-8/2022-23 ?%ಾಂಕ:25/04/2022
ಳTವh ೆ ಪತ
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 ಾಲೂಕು 3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/18 ಮತು
128/821 ರ\ನ ೆಚುvವ ಜ ೕ Mೆ ಪ ಾರ ೕಡುವ ಕು ತು.
ಉ ೇಖಃ 1) ಈ ಕNೇ ಸSೆ#ಯ; ವರ? ?%ಾಂಕ:25.04.2022.
2) ೇಂದ ಸ ಾ#ರದ ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ&:S.O.2962(E) ?%ಾಂಕ:01-09.2020.
****()****
Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ ೆ ಾW 75 ರ ಅಡ• ೊ-ೆbಂದ ಬಂLಾPಳ ಾ 6 Aೋ--ವAೆdನ
Aೋ--ವAೆdನ J]ಾಗದ\
ಭೂXಾP ೕನಪ[ಸಲು ೇಂದ ಸ ಾ#ರವw ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ&:
ಸಂRೆ& S.O.2962(E) ?%ಾಂಕ:01-09.2020
?%ಾಂಕ
ರಂ ೆ ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ೊರ[0ದುW, ಸ? ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆಯ\ ಒಳMೊಂ[ದW, 3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ;
22 & (128/82
128/2 21 ಹ-ೇ ನಂ.)
ನಂ ರ\ನ 324 ಚದರ ೕಟ; ಖುƒf ಜ ೕನು ಮತು ಕಟ€ಡಗhMೆ
ಈMಾಗ ೇ ಅSಾ--#.
ಅSಾ--# ಆdದುW, ಅSಾ--#ನಂ
ಅSಾ--#ನಂ ೆ ರೂ.11,61,932
ರೂ ಗಳನು, ಈ ಕNೇ bಂದ RTGS
ಮೂಲಕ ಮMೆ BಾJಸ ಾdರುತ ೆ.ೆ
3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ\ ಮMೆ Xೇ ದ ಮI ಜ ೕನು ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/
128/82l (ಹ-ೇ
ನಂ.
ನಂ.128/
128/82ಎ)
2ಎ) ರ\ ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ೊರ[0ದ ನಂತರ ಇ ೕ'Mೆ
ೕ'Mೆ ದುರ0'ಾdದುW, ಅದರಂ ೆ ಮMೆ
ಪ ಾರ ೕ[ರುವ ಜ ೕ dಂತ ಅ ಕ J0ೕಣ#ದ ಜ ೕನು ಭೂXಾP ೕನSಾdರುವw ಾd h0,
h0,
23
ೕವw ಸ\0ದW ಅ #ಯನು, ಪ ಗK0 ನಮI ಕNೇ ಸSೆ#ಯ;ರವರು ವರ? ಸ\0ರು ಾAೆ.
ಾAೆ. ಅವರ
ವರ?ಯಂ ೆ ೆಚುvವ 'ಾd ಭೂXಾP ೕನSಾdರುವ,
ೕನSಾdರುವ, 3ಾK Mಾ ಮದ ಮI ಜ ನು
ಸSೆ#ನಂ.
ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/
128/821 ರ\ ಅಂ ಾಜು 384 ಚದರ ೕಟ; J0ೕಣ#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 ೆ.ೆ.
ಇಂ ತಮI JQಾP0,
ಸx/-
JQೇಷ ಭೂXಾP ೕ%ಾ ಾ ಮತು ಸUಮ Bಾ ಾರ
]ಾರ ೕಯ Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ ೆ ಾW Bಾ ಾರ
Aಾ. ೆ.75(48) ಾಸನ, 2.0.Aೋ-- J]ಾಗ, ಾಸನ"
(Emphasis added)
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.
24
8.3. A representation then is submitted by the petitioners on
08-04-2025 which reads as follows:
"Date:08.04.2025
R.P.A.D.
From,
1) M.Sudhakar Pai
Advocate- High Court,
S/o. Late. M.Kogganna Pai
No. 1080, 1st Floor, 12th Cross,
Kodandaramapuram, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
2) M.Narayana Pai
S/o. Late. M.Kogganna Pai,
Marchant,
P.O. MANI-574253
Bantwal Taluk. (DK)
To,
1) 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,
1st Floor, K.H.B.Colony,
Channapattana,
Opp. New K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand,
HASSAN - 573 201.
2) 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).
Dear Sirs,
25
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.
Ref: (1) Your Office Endorsement dtd:25.04.2022, in
No./SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-8/2022-23.
(2) Your Office Endorsement dtd:25.04.2022, in
No./SLAO/NHAI/HSN/OTHER-7/2022-23.
-----
With reference to the above subject, your kind attention
is drawn as hereunder;
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.
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/-.
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.
In this background, we have approached the D.D.L.R.,
Mangaluru for re-plotting the said lands. The D.D.L.R. has re-
plotted the lands by showing 1-26 Acre of land in Sy.No.128/18
26
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.
Thereafter, we had given individual representations
dtd:09.10.2021 to both of you, annexing all the relevant
documents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thereafter, you have sought Joint Measurement
Certificate from ADLR, Bantwal, who in turn, has submitted it to
you to enable you to pass awards.
Despite all that, till date you have failed to pass awards in
respect of our lands, as promised by you.
27
We have been constantly approaching you in this regard.
For the reasons best known to you, you have failed to
pass awards and give compensation to us, till date.
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.
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.
Thanking you,
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:
"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 ರXೆMಾd
3ಾK ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/821 ಮತು ಸSೆ#ನಂಬ; 128/18 ರ\ನ
ಜ ೕ Mೆ ಪ ಾರ ೋ ೕವw ಸ\0ರುವ ಅ #
?%ಾಂಕ:11.04.2025.
ಉ ೇಖಃ 1) ೇಂದ ಸ ಾ#ರದ 3A(1) ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ6.ಓ.2265(E)
?%ಾಂಕ: 07.07.2020.
2) ೇಂದ ಸ ಾ#ರದ 3[ ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ಸಂRೆ& ಎ6.ಓ.2962(ಇ)
?%ಾಂಕ:01.09.2020.
3) ೕವw ಈಕNೇ Mೆ ಕಳTx0ರುವ ಮನJ ?%ಾಂಕ:11.04.2025
****()****
Hೕ\ನ Jಷಯ ೆf ಸಂಬಂ 0ದಂ ೆ, ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಮMೆ hಸುವw ೇನಂದAೆ, ದ)ಣ ಕನ,ಡ
ೆ, ಬಂLಾPಳ ಾಲೂಕು, 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 ಾಶJಲSಾದW ಂದ ಪ ಾರ ೆf ಪ ಗK0ಲ.
ಪ ಸುತ ೕವw ಸದ ಜ ೕ ನ ದುರ0 3ಾ[0 ೊಂ[ದುW ಸದ ಜ ೕನು ಈಗ Rಾಸd
ಜ ೕ%ಾdರುವwದ
ೕ%ಾdರುವwದ ಂದ ಪ ಾರ ೕಡyೇ ೆಂದು ಉ ೇಖದ ಮನJಯ\ ೋ ರು ೕ . 3ಾK
Mಾ ಮದ ಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/82
ಸSೆ#ನಂ 212
2 ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/82
ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ 21 ರ\ 384 ಚದರ ೕಟ; ಎಂ.ಸುGಾಕರ
ಎಂ ಸುGಾಕರ Bೈ
2D ೇ• ೊಗEಣFBೈ ಎಂಬ ಮMೆ Xೇ ದುW ಅ ೇ ೕ ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ.128/18
ೊಸಸSೆ#ನಂ 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 ೕ .
ಈ ಬMೆE ಈ ಕNೇ ಯ\ ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು, ಪ @ೕ\0ದುW, ಉ ೇಖ(1)
ೇಖ ಮತು (2) ರಂ ೆ
Aಾƒ‰ೕಯ ೆ ಾW ಾZW 1951 ರ ಕಲಂ 3ಎ
ಎ(1) ಮತು 3[
[ ೇಂದ ಸ ಾ#ರ ಅ ಸೂಚ%ೆ ೊರ[0ದುW
ೊ 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
?%ಾಂಕ ರಂ ೆ ಮI ೆಸ Mೆ ಾಗೂ MRT130/2021-22
29
?%ಾಂಕ:08.02.2022
?%ಾಂಕ ರಂ ೆ ಎಂ %ಾAಾಯಣ Bೈ ೆಸ Mೆ ದುರ0ಯಂ ೆ Rಾ ೆ'ಾdರುವwದು
ಾಖ ೆಗhಂದ ಕಂಡುಬರುತ ೆ.ೆ
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 ಾಲೂಕು, 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 ೆ."
(Emphasis added)
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.
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
30
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.
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:
31
".... .... .....
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
32
Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, which
renders such claims untenable in law.
20. 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.
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."
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.
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
33
identical question, this Court in the case of HEERA J SHETTY @
VANITHA J SHETTY v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER2, has
held as follows:
".... .... ....
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.
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.
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.
2
W.P.No.14786 of 2025 decided on 16-09-2025
34
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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court was dealing with an identical circumstance where land
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.
35
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: -
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(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.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ