Karnataka High CourtShri Basettappa S/O Veerappa ... vs The National Highway Authorities Of ... on 11 April, 2022Author:Suraj GovindarajBench:Suraj Govindaraj-1-\n\n\n\n\n                                     WP No. 105199 of 2021\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH\n\n          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022\n\n                         BEFORE\n        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ\n         WRIT PETITION NO. 105199 OF 2021 (LA-RES)\nBETWEEN:\n\nSHRI BASETTAPPA S/O VEERAPPA KUMBALAVATHI\nAGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,\nR/O. AT KOKILLA CIRCLE\nCOLLEGE ROAD, KUSTAGI\nKOPPAL DISTRICT-583231\n\n                                              ...PETITIONER\n\n(BY MS. GAYATRI FOR         SRI.   MALLIKARJUNSWAMY     B.\nHIREMATH, ADVOCATE)\nAND:\n\n1.    THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA\n      (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT HIGHWAYS)\n      REGIONAL OFFICE, SY.NO.12 14 KM\n      NEAR DEEPAK BUS STOP\n      NAGASUNDRA, M S RAMAIAH ENCLAVE\n      BENGALURU-560001.\n2.    THE PROJECT DIRECTOR\n      NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA\n      PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT\n      C-10, SRUTHI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN\n      2ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR\n      BEHIND RTO OFFICE,\n      HOSPETE-583201, DIST. BALLARI 583 201\n3.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER\n      GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\n      NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA\n      WARD NO.14, LIC COLONY ROAD\n      OPPOSITE NCC CANTEEN\n                                  -2-\n\n\n\n\n                                           WP No. 105199 of 2021\n\n\n     CANTOMENT, BALLARI\n     DIST. BALLARI-583101\n4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER\n     KOPPAL DISTRICT\n     KOPPAL-583231\n5.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER\n     KOPPAL DISTRICT\n     KOPPAL-583231\n6.   THE CHIEF OFFICER\n     TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\n     KUSTAGI TALUK\n     KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231\n\n                                                 ...RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 43;\n    SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R4 & R5)\n                           ---\n\n     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDERARTICLES 226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO\nISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED\nINTIMATION LETTER (ENDORSEMENT) DATED 12/11/2021\nISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.\n\n     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,\nTHE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n                              ORDER1.    The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following\n\n      reliefs:(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned\n             intimation letter (endorsement) dated 12/11/2021\n             issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-"H" bearing-3-WP No. 105199 of 2021No.¸ÀA/J¸ï.J¯ï.J.N/J£ï.ºÉZï.L/©.J¯ï.Dgï./J£ï.ºÉZï-150J/2021-22/172.(b) Issue such other writ of mandamus directing the\n           respondents to pass suitable award in terms ofsection 3Gof the National Highways Act and pay\n           suitable compensation as provided under law with\n           interest at rate of 12% from taking over the\n           possession of petitioner land.(c) Issue a writ order or direction as deemed fit to\n           grant under the circumstances of the case, in the\n           interest of justice and equity.2.   The petitioner claims to be the owner of lands\n\n     covered     under      Survey       Nos.53/11        and     53/12\n\n     measuring 0.3 cents and 0.8 cents respectively,\n\n     situated at Kustagi, Koppal District.3.   The land of the petitioner was used for the purpose\n\n     of formation of National Highway in the year 2011 by\n\n     issuing a notification.           Though the name of the\n\n     petitioner was found mentioned in the notification, no\n\n     compensation was awarded. The respondents went\n\n     ahead with the formation of the road and therefore,\n\n     the   petitioner     had     made      a    representation      on\n\n     21.11.2015 seeking for compensation.                       When no\n\n     such compensation was paid, the petitioner had-4-WP No. 105199 of 2021approached this Court by filing W.P.No.109484/2019\n\n     and   this    Court   vide     order     dated        22.03.2021,\n\n     observing that the acquisitions proceedings has not\n\n     been completed and observing that there is violation\n\n     ofArticle 300Aof the Constitution of India, violation\n\n     of right of immovable property and human rights of\n\n     the petitioner, the respondents were held to be\n\n     under obligation of making payment of compensation\n\n     for utilizing the land belonging to the petitioner\n\n     within a period of three months.4.   In pursuance thereto, respondent No.3 - SLAO has\n\n     issued   an    endorsement        at     Annexure-H           dated\n\n     12.11.2021 stating that, earlier there was an award\n\n     passed and as such, the amount of Rs.49,500/- is\n\n     liable to be paid and called upon the petitioner to\n\n     submit   various      documents.           It    is     the    said\n\n     endorsement dated 12.11.2021, which                     is under\n\n     challenge in these proceedings.-5-WP No. 105199 of 20215.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,\n\n     this Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 passed in\n\n     W.P.No.109484/2019 had directed the petitioner to\n\n     carry     out      necessary            assessment      of    the\n\n     compensation,       which         has    not   been   made    and\n\n     respondent No.3 has, in a bland manner, issued an\n\n     intimation letter intimating of the earlier award,\n\n     though no award has been passed insofar as the\n\n     petitioner's land has been concerned.6.   On    14.03.2022,       a    submission        was    made   that,\n\n     Annexure-H         is       the     determination       of    the\n\n     compensation payable in terms ofSection 3G(4)of\n\n     the     National    Highways            Authorities   Act,   1988\n\n     (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity),\n\n     when this Court cautioned the respondent that there\n\n     is no determination made in terms ofSection 3G(4)of the Act and as such, called upon the respondents\n\n     to produce necessary documents as regards the\n\n     determination of the compensation.-6-WP No. 105199 of 20217.   Today,   Sri.   Shivaraj     Balloli,   learned    counsel\n\n     appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits\n\n     that, an award had been passed on 25.04.2011 in\n\n     respect of the land of the petitioner at Sl.No.26\n\n     thereof, for a total extent of 1100 Sqm in the name\n\n     of TMC Kustagi, since it is the said TMC's name which\n\n     was found mention in the revenue records and as\n\n     such, he submits that the award has already been\n\n     passed as regards the land of the petitioner and\n\n     therefore, it is the said amount which has been\n\n     indicated in the intimation letter at Annexure-H.8.   Learned counsel for the petitioner would however,\n\n     submits that, item No.26 does not relate to the land\n\n     of the petitioner inasmuch as the land of the\n\n     petitioner is Survey No.53/11 and 53/12, whereas\n\n     item No.26 relates to survey No.53/3.             Separate\n\n     reference to Survey No.53/11 and 53/12 is made\n\n     under Sl.No.32 and 33 of the award, which are for 69\n\n     sqm and 120 sqm and therefore, the same cannot be-7-WP No. 105199 of 2021said to be related to the land of the petitioners which\n\n      is 300sqm and 800 sqm respectively.9.    On enquiry, as regards what was the survey number\n\n      of the property of the petitioner, which came to be\n\n      acquired and renumbered, learned counsel for the\n\n      respondents submits that, earlier survey No.53/1,\n\n      which was phodied and renumbered as 53/11 and\n\n      53/12 prior to 07.10.2010 and on 07.10.2010, the\n\n      phodi extract was issued. He submits that, since the\n\n      land in survey No.53/3 and 53/10 are adjacent to\n\n      each other, the compensation was not paid to the\n\n      petitioners since at the time of inspection, the land\n\n      was believed to be that of TMC, Kustagi and\n\n      compensation was determined in the name of TMC,\n\n      Kustagi.10.   Heard      Ms.Gayatri   appearing    on   behalf   of   Sri.\n\n      Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for\n\n      the petitioner, Sri.Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel\n\n      for respondents No.1 to 3, who has submitted his-8-WP No. 105199 of 2021arguments as per the instructions of respondent No.3- SLAO, who is also present in this Court and\n\n      perused the records.11.   The contention of respondent No.3 is that, there was\n\n      some confusion as regards the land of TMC, Kustagi\n\n      and of the land of the petitioner. This Court would\n\n      have to examine whether the said submission holds\n\n      any water or not.12.   The land of the petitioner admittedly has been\n\n      phodied   from   survey      No.53/10   and   measures\n\n      300sqm and 800 sqm respectively. The contention isthat, because survey No.53/3 also measures 11cents or 1100 sqm, there was confusion as regards\n\n      the land of the petitioner and the land of TMC,\n\n      Kustagi. Survey No.53/3 was notified land which\n\n      belongs to the petitioner and/or land from which the\n\n      petitioner's land in survey No.53/11 and 53/12 were\n\n      carved out of.-9-WP No. 105199 of 202113.   I'am unable to accept this submission since the land\n\n      of the petitioner was admittedly covered in survey\n\n      No.53/10, which was phodied in the year 2016 and\n\n      new No.53/11 and 53/12 were allotted.14.   A perusal of the award at Sl.No.26 indicates that as\n\n      regards the land in survey No.53/3, compensation of\n\n      Rs.14,79,500/- was awarded. The contention now is\n\n      that, the said land belongs to the petitioner and\n\n      therefore, the award which has been passed in the\n\n      year 2011 applies to the Petitioner's land.    If that\n\n      were to be so, Annexure-H endorsement ought to\n\n      have reflected the amount as stated at Sl.No.26,\n\n      namely   a   sum   of   Rs.14,79,500/-   whereas in\n\n      Annexure-H an amount of Rs.49,500/- is shown. It\n\n      is not clear on what basis the amount has been\n\n      reduced to Rs.49,500/-, except the submission made\n\n      being that at Sl.No.26 the land was mentioned as\n\n      non-agricultural land and now the intimation is for\n\n      agricultural land. If the intimation now issued is for- 10 -WP No. 105199 of 2021agricultural land at Rs.49,500/-, then it could never\n\n      be contended that there was an award which has\n\n      been passed in the year 2011 as regards the\n\n      property of the petitioner by referring it to Sl.No.26,\n\n      which in turn refers to survey No.53/3, for which the\n\n      compensation      has            been       determined     as\n\n      Rs.14,79,500/-.15.   The justification now sought to be made out by the\n\n      respondent No.3 - SLAO ex-facie is completely a\n\n      false statement. If at all an award had been passed\n\n      for the land of the petitioner, the intimation letter\n\n      also ought to have been for the same amount as that\n\n      in the award namely Rs.14,79,500/- and not reduced\n\n      to Rs.49,500/-. This reduction itself establishes that\n\n      there is no award passed in respect of the land of the\n\n      Petitioner. This would show that respondent No.3 is\n\n      going beyond the award passed in the year 2011 and\n\n      a   fresh   amount    of         compensation     has    been- 11 -WP No. 105199 of 2021determined vide Annexure H as regards the land of\n\n      the petitioner, without any basis.16.   Even at Sl.Nos.32 and 33, which related to and deals\n\n      with the property covered under Survey No.53/11\n\n      and 53/12, for an extent of land of 69 sqm, the\n\n      compensation is awarded is Rs.92,805/- and for 120\n\n      sqm, compensation awarded is Rs.1,73,505/-. Both\n\n      these are only towards the land and not towards the\n\n      tree cost or otherwise. The land of the petitioner is\n\n      admittedly 1100 sqm, for which the compensation\n\n      ought to have been at a larger amount and not the\n\n      reduced amount of Rs. 49,500.             A perusal of the\n\n      award does not indicate a compensation of Rs.\n\n      49,500 having assessed for any of the lands covered\n\n      under Survey No. 53.17.   Thus, neither Sl.No.26 nor Sl.No.32 and 33 can be\n\n      said to be related to the petitioner or in the\n\n      alternative   the   intimation   letter    at   Annexure-H\n\n      cannot be said to be related to the compensation- 12 -WP No. 105199 of 2021already determined in the award passed in the year\n\n      2011, thus falsifying the submissions now made.18.   In view of the above, it is clear that there is no\n\n      award which has ever been passed insofar as the\n\n      land of the petitioner is concerned. This court having\n\n      earlier observed that there is violation ofArticle 300-\n\n      Aof the Constitution of India, having directed the\n\n      respondents to award compensation, it was for the\n\n      respondents to have taken necessary action to\n\n      acquire the land, conduct necessary proceedings and\n\n      award the compensation.         Instead of doing so, the\n\n      respondents have tried to hoodwink this Court by\n\n      making a submission that award had already been\n\n      passed in the year 2011, when the earlier submission\n\n      made before this Court in W.P.No.109484/2019 was\n\n      that the assessment of compensation would be made\n\n      within a period of three months and as observed\n\n      above no award has infact been made as regards the\n\n      land of the petitioners.- 13 -WP No. 105199 of 202119.   The submission now made and the objections, which\n\n      have now been filed in the present proceedings are\n\n      contradictory to the earlier submissions made in\n\n      W.P.No.109484/2019 as also the documents which\n\n      are available on record as observed supra.20.   In view of the above, I pass the following:ORDER\n\n\n        i.     Writ petition is allowed.ii.    Certiorari is issued.      The intimation letter\n\n               dated 12.11.2021 at Annexure-H issued by\n\n               respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.\n\n\n        iii.   Mandamus       is       issued    directing    the\n\n               respondents to pass suitable award in terms\n\n               ofSection 3Gof the National Highways\n\n               Authorities   Act,      1988,    by   taking   into\n\n               consideration all the relevant parameters\n\n               and make the payment of interest thereon\n\n               within a period of four weeks from today.- 14 -WP No. 105199 of 2021iv.   The Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government\n\n            (DPAR), is directed to initiate such enquiry\n\n            as required in respect of respondent No.3\n\n            having    mislead     this    Court     and\n\n            misrepresented on various aspects dealt with\n\n            above.Sd/-JUDGE\n\n\ngab