Karnataka High Court
Sri. N. Nethravathi vs National High Ways Authority Of India on 2 April, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.33228 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.33227 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
IN W.P.Nos.33228/2013
BETWEEN:
N. Nethravathi,
Aged about 30 years,
Daughter of N. Nagaraj,
Resident of No.69, Manjunatha Nilaya,
Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 048.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Shanmukhappa, Advocate for M/s. Kesvy and
Company, Advocates )
AND:
1. National High Ways Authority of India
Project Implementation Unit,
2
Sy.No.13, 14th K.M.,
Bangalore-Tumkur Road,
Nagasandra Village,
Represented by the Project
and General Manager (Tech),
Bangalore - 560 073.
2. The Assistant Commissioner and
Competent Authority, NH-4,
(Bangalore-Hoskote-Mulbagal),
3rd Main, Palasandra Layout,
Gulpet, Kolar - 570 008.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and Competent Authority, NHAI,
Bangalore, NH-4,
(Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore Section)
KM 216/900 TO KM 320/000
Kolar - 570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Shilpa Shah, Advocate for M/s. Singhania and
Partners for Respondents)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated
1.8.2008 to an extent of 958 square meters in Sy. No.29/1 of
K.R.Puram Village, Bangalore East Taluk, issued by the first
respondent vide notification No.S.O.1913(E) under Section
3(D) of the National Highway Act 1956 vide Annexure-D as
the same is not required for the purpose for which the same
came to be acquired and etc;
3
IN W.P.No.33227/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. N. Nagaraj,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of M. Nagappa,
Resident of No.69, Manjunatha Nilaya,
Garudacharpalya,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 048.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Shanmukhappa, Advocate for M/s. Kesvy and
Company, Advocates )
AND:
1. National High Ways Authority of India
Project Implementation Unit,
Sy.No.13, 14th K.M.,
Bangalore-Tumkur Road,
Nagasandra Village,
Represented by the Project
and General Manager (Tech),
Bangalore - 560 073.
2. The Assistant Commissioner and
Competent Authority, NH-4,
(Bangalore-Hoskote-Mulbagal),
3rd Main, Palasandra Layout,
Gulpet, Kolar - 570 008.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and Competent Authority, NHAI,
4
Bangalore, NH-4,
(Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore Section)
KM 216/900 TO KM 320/000
Kolar - 570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Shilpa Shah, Advocate for M/s. Singhania and
Partners for Respondents)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated
1.8.2008 to an extent of 480 square meters in Sy. No.29/1 of
K.R.Puram Village, Bangalore East Taluk, issued by the first
respondent vide notification No.S.O.1913(E) under Section
3(D) of the National Highway Act 1956 vide Annexure-D as
the same is not required for the purpose for which the same
came to be acquired and etc;
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
These petitions are disposed of by this common order as the petitioners are father and daughter and holding lands in their individual names, which belonged to the same family. 5
2. It transpires that a total extent of 3573 Square Metres of land was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NH Act', for brevity) and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the remaining extent of land and had made representations to the respondents as well to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings in so far as the extent of 1438 Square Metres is concerned. The respondents had also made a recommendation to the Central Government to withdraw from the acquisition in respect of an extent of 1438 Square Metres, which was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. But however, it transpires that the Central Government has rejected the recommendation.
It is in this background that the present petitions are filed claiming that there be a direction to the respondents to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings since the national highway, including the service roads, has been formed and there is no immediate prospect of any other purpose. It is also 6 stated that the compensation amount has been paid only to the extent of 2065 square metres and it would stand to reason that since the land is no longer required for the respondents, the respondent ought to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings as no compensation has been paid in respect of the said extent of land.
The lands having been acquired and a major portion of it having been taken possession of, the acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respects.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would however point out that the land notified was the entire extent of 3573 square metres and the award was also passed in respect of the entire extent and the compensation amount as well has been deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), in respect of the entire extent. The exigencies of widening the national highway required the respondents to take possession of the extent of 2065 Square metres forthwith and 7 therefore, for all purposes, the possession in respect of the remaining extent is deemed to have been taken and in the eye of law, in terms of Section 3(f) of the NH Act, the land has vested in the Central Government on the date of the publication of the final notification and taking of physical possession was a mere formality. The land in question in the present case in vacant land. Therefore, the possession is deemed to have been taken both in law and in fact. The petitioners claiming to be in physical possession continuously is only a claim and cannot be accepted as being in settled possession of the land.
Therefore, once the land is vested in the Central Government, even if it has not been utilised for the purpose of a national highway, there is no right available in the petitioners to seek that the land should revert back to them after acquisition. The legal position would be that the Central Government would be in a position to utilize the land for some other public purpose, if the public purpose for which it is acquired has been satisfied. And insofar as the compensation amount is 8 concerned, the same being in deposit, it is available for the petitioners to withdraw the same. Therefore, the learned Counsel would contend that the petition ought to be dismissed.
4. Given the above facts and circumstances, the legal proposition put-forward by the learned counsel for the respondents is the true legal position. Therefore, the question of the petitioners seeking that the land should revert back to them is not tenable. In any event, the recommendation made to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings in so far as the remaining extent of land that has remained unutilized has been rejected by the Central Government. It is hence for the petitioners to withdraw the compensation amount that is already available. However, since the petitioners did not choose to withdraw the compensation in respect of the remaining extent, which they claim to be in possession, in the belief that the authorities would withdraw from the acquisition proceedings in respect of that limited extent and that impression being strengthened by the recommendation made to 9 withdraw the acquisition proceedings by the respondents themselves, the end result is that the petitioners have deprived themselves of the benefit of the compensation amount. The same having remained with the SLAO, would have enured to the benefit of the respondents. Therefore, it would be in order if the petitioners are compensated in some nominal manner for having deprived the compensation amount over the years in the belief that the land would revert to them. Since this has not come about, it would be appropriate if the petitioners are compensated by awarding a nominal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the possession was taken of the extent of land measuring 2065 square metres. The compensation amount in respect of the remaining land to the extent of 1438 square metres shall be paid along with interest at 6% per annum. The petitioners shall approach the SLAO and on the petitioners approaching the SLAO, the SLAO shall disburse the amount with interest within a period of four weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 10
The petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv