Karnataka High Court
Shri Chandrashekar Shidramappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB
RFA No. 100016 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100016 OF 2022 (MON-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR SHIDRAMAPPA BEMBALGI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO.2605, KHANAPUR ROAD,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed BELAGAVI-590002.
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Location: HIGH P.W.D. FORT, BELAGAVI-590002.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD 3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BENCH
CORPORATION OF CITY OF BELAGAVI-590002.
4. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,
2ND CROSS, SATTUR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI,
DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-580009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. SAGAR LADDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB
RFA No. 100016 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
27.09.2021 IN O.S.NO.90/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This appeal by the plaintiff in OS No.90/2016 takes exception to the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2021 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, (for short, 'the Trial Court'), whereby the said suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking compensation of Rs.70,74,000/- together with 12% interest from the date of non compliance of legal notice dated 03.11.2015 till realization was dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Trial Court. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
(a) The appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are the State Government while defendant No.3 is the Commissioner of City Corporation, Belagavi and defendant No.4 is the National Highway Authority of India (for short, 'NHAI'). The suit schedule property is described as open space measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 75 feet situated in a property bearing CTS Nos.2605 and 2606 at Khanapur road, Tilakwadi, Belagavi.
According to the plaintiff, immovable property bearing land in RS Nos.21 and 22 situated at Khanapur Road, Angol, Belagavi was the ancestral property of the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff and his family members got the said land converted for a non- agricultural (NA) purpose in the year 1960 and the layout plan was approved in the year 1961.
(b) It was contended that the plaintiff's father constructed a stone building in plot No.9 (CTS No.2605) and plot No.10 (CTS No.2606) in RS No.21 in the year 1965 and the said plots were measuring 116 feet North-South and 75 feet East- -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR West on the eastern side of Khanapur-Belagavi-Goa road, which is the National Highway. It is further contended that, subsequently, the said plots are given CTS Nos.2605 and 2606 respectively and are situated adjoining the said National Highway.
(c) Plaintiff further contended that on 27.03.2000, the Government of India has declared Khanapur-Belagavi-Goa road as a National Highway - NH4A by order dated 09.10.1998. The Belagavi Urban Developed Authority (BUDA) has prepared a CDP plan and as per the said plan, the said road is 120 feet East and West. The defendant No.4/NHAI requested the State Government to take up road widening of the said road in six lanes. Accordingly, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 took up the work of road widening and after survey marked the boundary line of the road as 42 meters. Since, some portion of the road came within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3/Corporation, it got powers to remove the encroachments on the public road. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 started demolishing the encroachments on the said road and in the process, the compound wall and the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR portion of the building belonging to the plaintiff in the CTS Nos.2605 and 2606 were also demolished.
(d) The plaintiff further contended that the suit schedule property measuring an area of 150 feet X 30 feet situated in CTS Nos.2605 and 2606 were illegally taken over by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 by demolishing the existing structure without following due process of law and without resorting the acquisition proceedings, thereby depriving the plaintiff of his valuable constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
(e) It is further contended that before resorting to the expansion of the road and breaking and utilization of the suit schedule property for that purpose, it was absolutely essential for the defendants to lawfully acquire the suit schedule property in the manner known to law and requires acquisition proceedings, failing which the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss caused to him on account of the illegal taking over, dispossession and utilization of the suit schedule property by the defendant Nos.1 to 3. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
(f) It is also contended that the plaintiff had the suit schedule property valued, and as of the date of the suit, the market value of the suit schedule property was Rs.70,74,000/-. A lawyer's notice dated 03.11.2015 having been issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, calling upon them to pay compensation. The defendants did not comply with the said demand and as such, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking compensation and other reliefs against the respondents/defendants.
4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement disputing and denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiff. While they admitted that RS Nos.21 and 22 has been converted for non-agricultural use/purpose, the claim of right, title and possession over the said properties put forth by the plaintiff was disputed and denied. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 also admitted that the road widening work for NH4A was taken up at the instance of defendant No.4-NHAI. However, it was contended that since, the plaintiff and others had encroached upon the road which was part and parcel of the National Highway, defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with defendant -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR No.3 took up the work of demolishing illegal encroachments in the suit schedule property on which the said encroachments were situated and since the same did not belong to the plaintiff, the question of paying any compensation to the plaintiff would not arise in the factual circumstances of the instant case and the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.
5. The defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement reiterating the various contentions urged by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and sought for dismissal of the suit. It was however contended that, since defendant No.3 had not acquired the suit property for the purpose of expansion of road, the question of defendant No.3 paying any compensation would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and especially considering the defendant No.3 was neither involved in, nor responsible for, the expansion/widening of the National Highway at the instance of defendant No.4/NHAI.
6. Defendant No.4/NHAI also filed a separate written statement inter alia contending that after the concerned road having been declared as a National Highway/NH4A, the development, widening and maintenance of the stretch of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR said highway from Kilometre 0 to kilometre 9.5 is a responsibility of the State Government and since, the defendant No.4 neither demolished any portion of the suit schedule property nor took possession of the same from the plaintiff, the suit as against the defendant No.4 was liable to be dismissed.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:
"Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner of suit properties?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants without acquiring suit properties demolished compound wall illegally and took the suit property for road widening?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that market value of suit properties measuring 150 x 30 feet comes to Rs.70,74,000/-?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for compensation with interest as sought?
5. What order or decree?-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR Additional Issues:
1. Whether the defendants prove that the suit property is situated within the stretch of the national highway No.4/A which is entrusted in the State Government of Karnataka?
2. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 prove that this suit is liable to be dismissed for not issuing the notice U/Sec. 80 of the CPC?
3. Whether this suit in the present form is maintainable?"
8. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14 were marked. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 got examined Sri. Sundar Bapu Koli as DW1 and Ex.D1 to D4 were marked by way of documentary evidence.
9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to answer all the issues against the plaintiff, and proceeded to dismiss the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for respondent No.3, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
11. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered, and the material on record including the records of the Trial Court has been perused.
12. The following points that arise for consideration in the present appeal are:
i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff?
ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal?
Regarding Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
13. It is trite law that a person possessing immovable property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. The possessory and proprietary rights over immovable property are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR constitutionally guaranteed and protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that depriving a person from their rights over immovable property would result in directions being shown to the State Government and its authorities to not only ensure a version of its form, but acquiring the land which was never utilized by the respondent by the State Government and its authorities, will also be liable to pay compensation for such illegal taking over, dispossession and utilization of lands by the State and its authorities, without resorting to coercion proceedings and without following due process of law.
14. The legal position regarding the State using/acquiring the property of a private person without initiating appropriate procedure as contemplated under law and without paying compensation, is forthcoming from the following judgment:
14.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others1, while considering a fact situation, wherein the Corporation had entered upon the property of the writ petitioner 1 (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 533
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR and placed its men and material in the property of the writ petitioner. It was the contention of the Corporation that exercising powers under Section 352 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 19802, the property of the writ petitioner was acquired. The learned Single Judge held that the Corporation did not have power to acquire property under Section 352 of the Corporation Act, and a Division Bench disposed of the appeal directing the Corporation to acquire the property under Sections 536 or 537 of the said Act. Challenging the said order, the Corporation approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said factual matrix, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to property constitute seven sub-rights and held as follows:
30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are:
(i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property - the right to notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition - the right to be heard,
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire the right to a reasoned decision, 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation Act'
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
(iv) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose - the duty to acquire only for public purpose,
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings - the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting - the right of conclusion."
(iii) Upon noticing the said sub-rights, the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded seven principles, which are as follows:
(a) The right to notice;
(b) The right to be heard;
(c) The right to a reasoned decision;
(d) The duty to acquire only for public purpose;
(e) The right of restitution or fair compensation;
(f) The right to an efficient and expeditious process;
(g) The right of conclusion.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR 14.2. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.G. Belliappa Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru3, held as follows:
19. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for BDA, from time to time, BDA passed resolutions offering 100%, 75%, 50% of the area of the acquired land in lieu of taking over of lands without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. It is clear that BDA cannot be a judge in its own cause and decide the extent of compensation payable in respect of the land which it has taken over without resorting to acquisition proceedings. If BDA wants to take over the land without acquisition, it can be done only with the consent of the owner or a person having interest in the land after arriving at an agreement regarding payment of compensation.
20. We may note here that such an action on the part of BDA is in complete violation of the right of the respondent guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In this regard, reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lararam & Others V. Jaipur Development Authority and another4, (2016) 11 SCC 31 . In paragraph 124 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus:
"124. The right to property though no longer a fundamental right is otherwise a zealous possession 3 2020(1) Kar. L.J. 504 (DB) 4 IX(2015) SLT 211 : 2016(4) SCJ 161 : 2015 SCLT 631 (OnLine)
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR of which one cannot be divested save by the authority of law as is enjoined by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Any callous inaction or apathy of the State and its instrumentalities, in securing just compensation would amount to dereliction of a constitutional duty, justifying issuance of writ of mandamus for appropriate remedial directions."
23. Thus, this is a clear case of gross violation of the right of the respondent guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the conduct of BDA shows gross arbitrariness which violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, after noticing that the respondent has been deprived of such a large extent of land from the year 2002 without paying any compensation, the only course open for this Court is to direct restoration of the schedule land to the respondent. However, as it is the claim of BDA that the schedule land is already utilized for public purposes, we propose to direct that the order directing restoration of possession will not be acted upon if proceedings for compulsory acquisition are initiated within the time fixed by this Court, with a rider that if BDA or the State Government fail to complete the acquisition process and to make payment of compensation to the respondent within a reasonable time, a fresh petition can be filed by the respondent for seeking possession.
15. In the facts of the present case, the material on record discloses that it is an undisputed fact that the suit
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR schedule property, bearing CTS Nos.2605 and 2606, was originally part and parcel of the property bearing R.S.Nos.21 and
22. This land was converted to non-agricultural use, and a layout plan in this regard was approved in the year 1960, as can be seen from the sanctioned layout plan issued in the year 1961 (Ex.D1), produced by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. In this context, a perusal of the sanctioned layout plan in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff will indicate that internal roads have been formed by the plaintiff and his predecessor in the layout, and the said layout is situated on the eastern side of the Khanapur-Belagavi-Goa road (NH-4A), which was 60 feet wide at that point of time.
16. In the year 1965, the father of the plaintiff constructed a stone building on Plots No.9 and 10 situated within the said layout, which were subsequently designated as CTS Nos.2605 and 2606, located immediately adjacent to the aforesaid Belagavi-Khanapur-Goa road (NH-4A). On 09.10.1998, the Central Government declared the Belagavi-Khanapur-Goa road as National Highway No.4A (NH-4A) under Government Order No.PWG:302: CRM, Bangalore. Further, the Belagavi
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR Urban Development Authority5 prepared a Comprehensive Development Plan6 in the year 1992-93, showing the width of the National Highway as 120 feet. Both the layout plan (Ex.D1) and the Government Notification dated 27.03.2000 (Ex-D3), clearly indicate that the State Government notified building/control lines for NH-4A, thereby restricting construction activity near the highway. A letter by the National Highways Authority of India7, dated 14.11.2014, has been referred to in the written statement of defendant No.3.
17. In addition thereto, the appellants have produced revenue records, survey records, and other related documents, all of which clearly establish not only the title and possession of the plaintiff and his predecessor over the suit schedule property, but also the fact that the land was converted for non-agricultural purposes, a layout was formed, and at the time of formation of the layout, the Belagavi-Khanapur-Goa road was only about 60 feet wide. It was subsequently sought to be widened for the purpose of developing NH-4A.
5 Hereinafter referred to as the 'BUDA' 6 Hereinafter referred to as the 'CDP' 7 Hereinafter referred to as the 'NHAI'
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
18. The Trial Court, while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff, holds as under:
26. Here all the disputed points which requires due consideration is, whether prior to declaration of national highway itself, was there a existing road which was 120 feet as per CDP plan and was it identified in the NA layout plan and that there was an existing road to the extent of 60 feet and only development to the extent of 30 feet road on each edge had to be completed. So, if this fact is established, then certainly the construction alleged to be made by the plaintiff has to be construed that the construction was in the public land and he shall be oust out of the court. In vice-versa, the plaintiff has to disprove this fact. But however, to disprove this fact, except the plaintiff placing the extract of the master plan 2020 (revision-II) issued by government vide order No.UDD/83 BEMAPRA/2013, dt: 15-02-2014 pertaining to RS No.21 of Angol, Belagavi, he has not produced any other documents. Perhaps, it was the main defence of the defendant No.1 and 2 that, there is a specific mention of the existence of 120 feet road in CDP which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and that there was also an existing road to the extent of 60 feet and only development to the extent of 30 feet road on each edge was to be completed which finds place in the layout plan and non-producing itself suffices, the plaintiff is well aware of the fact. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced the layout plan which is under his custody. However, the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR defendant No.1 & 2 have placed the copy of the layout plan which is marked at Ex.D1 through confrontation.
27. It is not in dispute that, the Ex.D1 is the layout plan which pertains to the plaintiff and it is also not in dispute that, this plan was sanctioned in the year 1960. If the layout is scrutinized, it evidence that, the Belagavi- Khanapur road is shown with double line measuring 60 feet and the CTS No.2505 & 2506 adjoining to each other which is situated on the eastern side of the said road which cannot be disputed. Again the plot No.9 is shown as East-West 116 ft and North-South 75 feet. This fact also cannot be disputed. Again, we find a space of 30 feet shown as single line immediately on the eastern side of plot No.9 & 10 which also cannot be disputed. Here, this is the crux of the case where the defendant No.1 & 2 claims that this is the space of 30 feet shown in single line on each edge was to be completed as there was already 60 feet road in existence and it is meant for the road. Admittedly, the Ex.D1 suffices this fact. Because, if the single line referred in Ex.D1 is not pertaining to the road, then why it is shown in the single line is not explained by the plaintiff with supporting evidence.
28. The Ex.D1 evidences the fact that, while issuing the layout plan, it is already made clear that, there is an existing road measuring 120 feet and since it was 60 feet road, that would be widen with the extent of 30 feet road on each edge. Even the PW.1 admits the extent of the road to be calculated from the middle of the road and also he admits the said road belongs to the government
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR and also admits that, no construction could be made in the said road. So, again this fact suffices, he has not challenged the layout plan nor he has questioned at the relevant point of time. Since, he is very well aware of the fact of the existence of the road, obviously, he cannot put- up any construction over the said road. No doubt, the DW.1 was elaborately cross-examined, but it is the plaintiff who has to stand on his own leg and he has to prove his case. Admittedly, nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of DW.1 to discredit the Ex.D1. Moreover, the plaintiff also cannot deny or dispute the Ex.D1. No doubt, the plaintiff claims that, the DW.1 has admitted that, if the set-back area is required for the government, it has to acquire it. Even, it is his case that, if it is acquired by corporation, it has to compensate. But, it is not the case of the defendant No. 1 & 2 or other defendants that, they have acquired the set-back area for expanding the road, but it is their case that, it was already notified that it was reserved for the widening the road while approving the layout plan. When such being the case, it cannot be considered that, the demolished portion does belong to the plaintiff.
29. The defendant No.1 and 2 also relied upon Ex.D3 the notification/circular of the government dt:27- 03-2000 wherein a notification is issued with regard to demarcating the building lines and control lines of national highways on either side as per the national highway act 1956 and the government order dt:09-10-1998 wherein, it restricts or bans any construction within 21.00 meters
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR from the building line with in the city limits of urban area where the national highway authority has declared a width of 75.00 meters on either side of existing national highway No.4 as green belt zone. Again, if this fact is taken into consideration, it makes clear that, no building should be constructed on the either side of the national highway to a width shown above and if it is constructed, it mandates the demolition. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that, the demolished property comes within his absolute ownership. Therefore, taking into consideration of the reason discussed above, having the defendants established that the suit property is situated within the stretch of the national highway No.4A which is entrusted in the state government of Karnataka, the plaintiff failed to establish the defendants without acquiring suit property demolished compound wall illegally and took the suit property for widening the road. Hence, I answer Issue No.1, 2 in the Negative and Addl. Issue No.1 in the Affirmative."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The aforesaid reasoning of the Trial Court clearly indicates that, although the Trial Court did not conclude that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit schedule property, it nevertheless proceeded to reject the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the notification declaring NH-4A to a width of 120 feet had the effect of preventing the plaintiff from putting up any
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR construction over the said area. Consequently, since the plaintiff was not entitled to beneficial use of that portion of land, he would not be entitled to compensation for the said land being utilized for the purpose of the national highway. However, the Trial Court, having referred to the cross examination of DW.1 on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2, has summarily dismissed the said evidence without properly appreciating the various admissions made during the cross-examination, as detailed hereunder:
¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-09-2019 NJ¸ï £ÀA.90/2016
rqÀ§Æèå-1
¸ÁQëUÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À ¨ÉÆâü¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®ÄB ²æà rrn ªÀQîjAzÀ, ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¦qÀ§Æèår ¨É¼ÀUÁ« G¥À«¨sÁUÀ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« E°è C¹¸ÉÖAl EAf¤AiÀÄgÀ DV PÀ¼ÉzÀ 5 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¨É¼ÀUÁªÀ¤AzÀ SÁ£Á¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà £ÀA 4J ªÉÊqÀ¤AUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« G¥À «¨sÁUÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà PÀvÀðªÀå ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £À£ÀUÉ ºÉʪÉà gÀÆ®è §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w vÀPÀ̪ÀÄnÖUÉ EzÉ. SÁ¸ÀV ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ°è D PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¨É¼ÀUÁ« PÀ¸À¨ÁzÀ j ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 21 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 22 ªÁ¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 21 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 22 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ 1961 gÀ°è ¯ÉÃOl ¥Áå÷è£À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¯ÉÃOl ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ CxÀªÁ PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¸ÉÃmï ¨ÁåPÀ JjAiÀiÁªÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ºÉaÑ£À eÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ gÀÆ®ì£ÀAvÉ JµÀÄÖ
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR eÁUÀ ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CµÀÖ£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ. ¯ÉÃOl ¥Áå÷è£À£ÀÄß C¥ÀÆæªÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀuÉ£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ ¯ÉÃOl ¥Áå÷è£À£ÀÄß C¥ÀÆæªÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÉÃl ¨ÁåPï JjAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁjUÀÆ C¢üPÁgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÉÃmï ¨ÁåPÀ JjAiÀiÁªÀÅ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CUÀ°ÃPÀj¹PÉƼÀî®Ä £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÉÃmï ¨ÁåPÀ JjAiÀiÁªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀ°®è. ¨É¼ÀUÁªÀ SÁ£Á¥ÀÅgÀ £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà AiÀiÁªÁUÀ DVvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä 120 Cr CUÀ®zÀ eÁUÀªÀÅ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ EvÀÄÛ. D PÀÄjvÀÄ £À£Àß §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw E®è. ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉÃgÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ. 1998 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 18-09-2019 £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà CxÉÆÃjnAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹zÀÝgÀÄ. D jÃw £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¹zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 120 Cr eÁUÀ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁºÀ°¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÅ D ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà CxÉÆÃjn¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAr®è. £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉà ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä 120 Cr eÁUÀ EzÀÝ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw £ÀªÀÄä §½ E®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ ¯ÉÃOl ¥Áå÷è£À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr 120 Cr eÁUÀ £Áå±À£À® ºÉʪÉÃUÉ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
1998 gÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ PÀlÖqÀzÀ UÉÆÃqÉUÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå ¨sÁUÀPÀÆÌ £ÀqÀÄªÉ 21 «ÄÃ. eÁUÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤r-3 gÀAvÉ 1998 gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢ü£À ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw E®è.
FUÀ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄÄ §ÆqÁzÀªÀgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgÀ ¥Áå÷褣À zÀÈrPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ( ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¤¦-14 gÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ) £ÀFUÀ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¤¦- 14 gÀ°è PÀ¥ÀÅà UÉgɬÄAzÀ vÉÆÃjzÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.21 gÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ D §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w E®è JAzÀÄ. ¤¦-14gÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ J£À£ÀÄß ºÉaÑUÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤r-4 gÀ°è 36 «ÄÃlgÀ CUÀ®zÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR PÁt¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 3¸ÀzÀj £ÀPÁ±ÀAiÀÄ°è 36 «ÄÃlgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ 2 PÀqÉUÀ¼À°è PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¸ÉÃmï ¨ÁåPÀ JjAiÀiÁ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÉÃl ¨ÁåPÀ JjAiÀiÁªÀÅ gÀ¸ÉÛ M¼ÀUÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¨É¼ÀUÁªÀ SÁ£Á¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉʪÉÃAiÀÄÄ 60 Cr EvÀÄÛ. FUÀ ªÉÊqÀ¤AUÀ CzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 120 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1998 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ D jÃw ªÉÊqÀ¤AUÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. D jÃw 60 Cr gÀ¸ÉÛ EzÀÄÝzÀÝ£ÀÄß 120 Cr ªÉÊqÀ¤AUÀ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw E®è. 60 Cr EzÀÝ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 120 Cr «¸ÀÛj¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ CAa£À°èzÀÝ UÀÄqÀAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ PÀ£À¸ÀÖçPÀë£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D jÃw UÀÄqÀAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉÇðgÉõÀ£À£ÀªÀgÀÄ dAnAiÀiÁV vÉUÉ¢zÉÝêÀÅ. D jÃw C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVvÉÆÛà E®èªÉÇà JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÁQë ¸Àé EZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀ UÀÄqÀAUÀrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ ªÉÄÊPÀ£À°è C£Ë£Àì ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¦qÀ§Æèår ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉÇðgÉõÀ£À£ÀªÀgÀÄ dAnAiÀiÁV C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉ¢gÀ°è®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¦qÀ§ÆèårAiÀĪÀgÉà vÉUÉ¢zÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁPÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝãÉ. £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉãÀA 4J ¨É¸ÀUÁ« £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è UÉÆêÁªÉøÀ ¸ÀPÀð®¤AzÀ ¥ÁæAgÀ¨sÀªÁV xÀgÀqÀ gÉïÉé UÉÃn£ÀªÀgÉUÉ PÀªÀIJðAiÀÄ® KjAiÀiÁzÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Áå±À£À® ºÉʪÉà £ÀA 4J UÉ UÉÆêÁªÉøÀ ¸ÀPÀð®¤AzÀ xÀqÀð gÉïÉé UÉÃlªÀgÉV£À ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ EgÀĪÀ eÁUÀzÀ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝãÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ eÁUÀªÀÅ UÉÆêÁªÉøÀ ¸ÀPÀð® ªÀÄvÀÄ xÀqÀð gÉïÉé UÉÃl £ÀqÀÄªÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ GvÀÛgÀ zÀQët 150 Cr ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ 30 Cr eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀîzÉà ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉà £Áå±À£À¯ï ºÉʪÉÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÁ¢UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ 120 Cr eÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ EvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß CwÃPÀæ«Ä¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÁ¢UÉ £ÁªÀÅ 150 EAlÄ 30 Cr eÁUÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨ÁzÀågÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÀÄgÀÄ«ZÁgÀuÉ E®è.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR (vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ) N.ºÉÃ.PÉÃ. ¸Àj CzÉ.
2£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj »jAiÀÄ ¢ªÁt £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ«.
20. A perusal of the aforesaid admissions made in the cross-examination indicates that DW.1 categorically admitted that the Belagavi-Khanapur-Goa road was originally only about 60 feet wide, and that it was only in the year 1998 it was widened to 120 feet for the purpose of developing NH-4A. Ex.D1, the layout plan, also indicates that at the time it was approved, and an undisputed point of time, a line is drawn between the highway and the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, merely showing that the said portion was earmarked for future road widening and that no construction was permitted on it. In fact, Plot Nos.9 and 10, bearing CTS Nos.2605 and 2606, undisputedly belong to the appellant, and the layout itself was formed by them, as is evident from the CTS extracts marked as Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P12.
21. The Trial Court has proceeded on the erroneous premise that, once the suit schedule property was earmarked for
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR the purpose of expansion of the national highway, the plaintiff would lose their proprietary and possessory right over the suit schedule property. This finding was made without appreciating that the mere designation or earmarking of the land for road widening, would not be sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of their proprietary and possessory rights over the suit schedule property. Such rights cannot be extinguished merely by earmarking the land, and the property cannot vest in the respondent Nos.1 to 3 without they having followed the due process of law by initiating acquisition proceedings and formally acquiring the suit schedule property from the plaintiff.
22. The learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that by virtue of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 19878, the suit schedule property would stand vested in the State Government. Section 32 of the said Act reads as follows:
32. Formation of new extension or layouts or making new private streets.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, no person shall form or attempt to form any 8 Hereinafter referred to as the 'KUDA'
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR extension or lay-out for the purpose of constructing building thereon without the express sanction in writing of the Authority and except in accordance with such conditions as the Authority may specify:
Provided that where any such extension or layout lies within the local limits of a local authority, the Authority shall not sanction the formation of such extension or lay out without the concurrence of the local authority:
Provided further that where the Local Authority and the authority do not agree on the formation of or the conditions relating to the extension or layout, the matter shall be referred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final.
(2) Any person intending to form an extension or layout, or to make a new private street shall send to the Commissioner a written application with plans and sections showing the following particulars:-
(a) the laying out of the sites of the area upon streets, lands or open spaces;
(b) the intended level, direction and width of the street;
(c) the street alignment and the building line and the proposed sites abutting the streets;
(d) the arrangement to be made for levelling, paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, swearing, draining,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR conserving and lighting the streets and for adequate drinking water supply.
(3) The provisions of this Act and any rules or bye- laws made under it as to the level and width of streets and the height of buildings abutting thereon shall apply also in the case of streets referred to in sub-section (2) and all the particulars referred to in that sub-section shall be subject to the approval of the Authority. (4) Within six months after the receipt of any application under sub-section (2), the Authority shall either sanction the forming of the extension or layout to be in conformity with the guidelines to be issued by the Government or making of street on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow it or ask for further information with respect to it.
(5) The authority may require the applicant to deposit, before sanctioning the application, the sums necessary for meeting the expenditure for making roads, side drains, culverts, underground drainage and water supply and lighting and charges for such other purpose as such applicant may be called upon by the Authority, provided the applicant also agrees to transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains, parks and open spaces, civic amenity areas laid out by him to the Authority, permanently without claiming any compensation therefor.
(6) Such sanction may be refused.-
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
(i) if the proposed street would conflict with any arrangements which have been made or which in the opinion of the authority is likely to be made for carrying out any general scheme of street improvement or other schemes or development or expansion by the authority; or
(ii) if the proposed street does not conform to the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws referred to in sub-section (3) ; or
(iii) if the proposed street is not designed so as to connect one end with a street which already open ; or
(iv) if the layout in the opinion of the authority cannot be fitted with any existing or proposed expansion or development schemes of the authority. (7) No person shall form a layout or make any new private street without the sanction of or otherwise than in conformity with the conditions imposed by the authority. If the authority requires further information from the applicant no steps shall be taken by him to form the layout or make the street until orders have been passed by the authority after the receipt of such information:
Provided that the passing of such orders shall not, in any case, be delayed for more than six moths after the authority has received all the information which it
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR considers necessary to enable it to deal finally with the said application.
(8) If the authority does not refuse sanction within six moths from the date of the application under sub-
section (2) or from the date of receipt of all information asked for under sub-section (7), such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form the extension or layout or to make the street, but not so as to contravene any or the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye-laws made under it.
(9) Any person who forms or attempts to form any extension or layout in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or makes any street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the authority under this section, shall be liable on conviction, to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees."
23. In our considered opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted, as it would apply only to the internal roads formed by the developer, which are part and parcel of the layout plan. The consequences of the said provision cannot be extended to roads that are earmarked for the purpose of road widening or for the widening of the adjacent national highway. As such, the contention urged on behalf of the respondents is liable to be rejected.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
24. To reiterate, the Trial Court has completely misdirected itself in arriving at the erroneous conclusion that, once the suit schedule property was earmarked for the purpose of road widening or for inclusion in the national highway, and the National Highway Authorities declared the Belagavi-Khanapur- Goa road as national highway and widening was undertaken, the plaintiff would automatically lose his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, which is totally erroneous. The findings recorded by the Trial Court in this regard deserve to be set aside.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others9, held as under:
"3. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land measuring 2715 sq. m,, was a narrow strip which fell within the 40 m margin from the centre of the highway where constructions were prohibited. It is contended that as the acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had to be considered as not having any development potential, and that therefore it could not be compared with the land (which was the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995) 9 (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 686
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR for which compensation had been determined having regard to its potential for development. It was also contended that being a narrow strip it was also not of much use even for agriculture purposes.
4. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the highway cannot be treated as a land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to highways prohibited construction on either side of the highway, up to a depth of 40 m from the centre of the highway. All that was required to create or realize potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip of land will become the "access" to the rear-side land from the main road and will also become the frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of the rear side land, as also creating a potential for its own use.
5. The contention that a land adjoining the highway should be treated as having no development potential (and therefore as land without much value except as ordinary agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to extend beyond the 40 m margin) as having potential for development, is illogical and cannot be accepted.
6. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR Let us assume that the Municipal bye-laws require a front (road side) set-back of 20' for construction of houses in a plot of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any construction while putting up the construction in the plot. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is acquired for road widening. Can the acquiring authority deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not of any value? Obviously not.
7. Therefore, determination of market value of the acquired land with reference to the value of comparable land cannot be faulted."
(emphasis supplied)
26. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, where the owner of the property, while putting up construction or forming a layout, leaves a portion of the land free from construction, it cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that he has lost his proprietary or possession rights over that portion of land. His valuable proprietary and possessory rights, guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away merely because a portion of the land was left vacant for the purpose of road widening.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
27. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial court fell in error in rejecting the claim of the appellant/plaintiff, by dismissing the suit based on surmises, conjectures and improper, erroneous appreciation of the material on record, warranting interference by this court in the present appeal.
28. Insofar as the quantum of compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellant/plaintiff is concerned, the appellant/plaintiff has produced a valuation certificate of the year 2015 (Ex.P11), which indicates that the value of the suit schedule property is ₹1,572/- per square feet. In view of the fact that the said document (Ex.P11) and the oral evidence of PW.1 in this regard have remained unimpeached, unchallenged and uncontroverted in the cross-examination, we find no reason to disbelieve the valuation of the suit schedule property as of the year 2015.
29. Under these circumstances, we deem it just and proper to accept the value of the suit schedule property as ₹73,71,600/- as on the date of the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be compensated for the said amount, together with interest
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR at the rate of 8% per annum from the year 2015 until the date of actual payment.
30. Insofar as the rate of interest to be paid on the aforesaid compensation is concerned, bearing in mind the principles underlying Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190810, and galloping rate of inflation, and the plaintiff has been deprived of his property since from the year 2015, a period of almost 10 years, we deem it just and appropriate to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the aforesaid sum, payable to the plaintiff from the year 2015 till the date of realization.
31. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants.
32. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.10
Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11142-DB RFA No. 100016 of 2022 HC-KAR
ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.90/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belgavi, is set aside.
iii) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum ₹73,71,600/- together with the interest at 8% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 17.03.2016 till realisation together with costs throughout.
iv) The suit of the plaintiff against defendant No.4 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SMM-para 1 to 12 PMP-para 13 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71