Karnataka High Court
Smt. Thimmakka vs Union Of India on 12 July, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.4887/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE D M THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2. SRI T THIMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE D M THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3. SRI D T RAJU
S/O LATE D M THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
4. SRI D T VENKATESH
S/O LATE D M THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DODDABELAVANGALA VILLAGE
AND POST,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU-561204.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY N, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS,
NEW DELHI-110001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NO.G 5 AND 6, SECTOR-10,
DWARAKA , NEW DELHI-110045.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND
GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL)
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
BENGALURU, NO.13,
NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, 14TH KM,
NAGASANDRA -TUMKUR ROAD,
HESARAGHATTA,
BENGALURU-560073.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAY 207, (NEW 648),
SOMPURA TO HOSKOTE DIVISION,
SITE OFFICE, NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R1
SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV. FOR R2-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT RESORT TO THE
PROPOSED WIDENING OF THE ROAD AND CONSEQUENT
DEMOLITION OF SHOPS OF THE PETITIONER
CONSTRUCTED IN THE BELOW MENTIONED SCHEDULE
PROPERTY, EXCEPT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 29/06/2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to resort to the proposed widening of the road and consequent demolition of the shops of the petitioners constructed in the petition schedule property, except by due process of law.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.N.Nanjunda Swamy for petitioners; Sri.Shivakumar, learned CGC for respondent No.1 and Smt.Shilpa Shah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land along with structures bearing Khaneshumari No.187/2 of Doddabelavangala Village, Doddaballapura Taluk. It is 4 submitted that, father of the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 had constructed shops in the schedule property and let out the same to the tenants. The respondent-National Highway Authority of India issued notification under S.O.2925(E) dated 30.12.2011 under Section 3(ii) and Section 3A(i) of the National Highway Act, 1956 notifying that it is intending to acquire lands specified in the schedule annexed to the said notification for building, maintenance, management and operation of NH No.207 (new NH No.648) on the stretch of land from Hosakote to Sompura section of Bangalore Rural District. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners' land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs was not acquired and no compensation is paid. Without acquiring and without compensation being paid, the respondent-authorities are utilizing the land of the petitioners for formation as well as widening National Highway. It is submitted that respondent-authorities have not initiated acquisition proceedings under National 5 Highways Act, 1956 (for short "1956 Act") to acquire the land in question, belonging to the petitioners. It is submitted that without notice and without any authority of law, the respondent-authorities started measuring and marking the properties for the purpose of widening the road and the petitioners were informed that the respondents would proceed to demolish the properties. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be entitled for appropriate compensation, if the petitioners' land is utilized for the purpose for formation of National Highway. Further, he submits that the petitioners have no objection for widening of the road, however, the petitioners have serious objection for widening the road without following due process of law. Thus, he prays for a direction to the respondent- authorities not to utilize the petitioners' land without following due process of law.
6
4. Learned counsel Smt.Shilpa Shah appearing for the respondent-authorities vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that petitioners' property is acquired by respondent-authorities and she refers to Gramatana land shown in acquisition notification dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure-D). It is submitted that Gramatana land at Doddavelavangala village measuring 3020 Sq. Mtrs is acquired. Further, she invites attention of this Court to Annexure-R1/representation dated 13.04.2015 submitted by the first petitioner wherein the first petitioner had sought for compensation for the acquired land to be determined as if the property is commercial property and not taking the property as agricultural land. Learned counsel would also invite attention of this Court to Annexure-R10/representation submitted by second petitioner wherein he admits acquisition of property bearing Khaneshumari No.187/2, but he prays for compensation treating his property as commercial property. Referring to Annexure-R13, learned counsel for 7 respondent-authorities would submit that the petitioners had approached the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Doddaballapura in A.S.No.10001/2017 praying for enhancement of compensation in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.No.167/1A, re-survey No.167/4A and Khaneshumari No.187/2 situated at Doddabelavangala village, Doddaballapura Taluk. The said arbitration suit was dismissed. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the only grievance of the petitioners is for payment of compensation and it is not their case that their property is not acquired. Further, learned counsel referring to memo filed on 03.06.2022 submits that the respondent-National Highway authorities have deposited the compensation in respect of the land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs in Misc.No.10038/2022 before the IV Additional Judge at Doddaballapura and it is for the petitioners to approach the Reference Court to seek for compensation amount. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioners 8 have already received compensation in respect of the structure standing on the land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 and compensation in respect of the land is deposited as stated above, since there is dispute among the family members. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that the only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to non-receipt of compensation in respect of the land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs. Annexure-R7/notice dated 29.04.2016 issued by respondent No.4 makes it clear that first petitioner and one Smt.B.Gangamma were issued notice to appear before the respondent No.4 on 06.05.2016 to determine the objection raised by Smt.B.Gangamma for disbursal of the compensation amount. Annexure-R1/representation by the first petitioner claiming compensation in respect of the 9 land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 and Annexure-R10 dated 30.04.2016 by second petitioner claiming compensation in respect of Khaneshumari No.187/2 treating it as commercial property. Annexure-R15/notice dated 24.11.2020 issued to first petitioner indicates that the first petitioner was directed to appear before the IV respondent on 10.12.2020 along with documents including the documents relating to O.S.No.35/2014.
6. A perusal of Annexure-D indicates that Khaneshumari numbers totally measuring 3020 Sq.Mtrs were acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway, which according the respondent-authorities included the property of the petitioners.
7. From the material made available and from the above discussions, it is clear that the petitioners admitted acquisition of the land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs. and sought compensation for the land treating it as commercial property. There is dispute 10 among the family members in O.S.No.35/2014 as well as other disputes are pending adjudication. Only, the petitioners who claim that they are owners of land in 67 Sq.Mtrs., are before this Court and stalled the entire project of National Highway between Hosakote and Sompura. Formation of National Highway, at the instance of petitioners, for compensation relating to a small piece of land, cannot stall implementation of the entire project. At the instance of petitioners, the project involving public interest or public purpose cannot be delayed and if delayed, public exchequer would be burdened. The road is an infrastructure and normally infrastructure project should not be delayed, that too on account of a small piece of land for which the petitioners claim compensation. It is to be noted that since there is dispute among the family members of the petitioners, the respondent-authorities deposited compensation amount in Misc.No.10038/2022 before the IV Additional District Judge at Doddaballapura in respect of the property in 11 Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs. It is open for the petitioners to approach the Court in which the compensation is deposited and seek for disbursement of compensation.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms