SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 1403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
Ranganathan N. Dead By Lrs Rajalaxmamma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24480 of 2021
Decided On : 06-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Onkara K.B.
For the Respondent: Leena C. Shivapurmath, Ganapathy Hegde

Headnote:(A) Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964 - Sections 14, 15 and 16 - Notification for compulsory land acquisition - Petitioners challenged notification invoking Section 15 claiming non-compliance with Section 14's survey requirements - Acquisition valid despite errors in notification process due to public importance and necessity of thorough traffic management. (Paras 10, 11, 23)

(B) Compulsory acquisition - Requirements of due process - Non-service of notice under Section 14 recognized as a procedural error; however, participation by petitioners in public meetings mitigates claim of arbitrariness. (Paras 19, 24)

(C) Jurisdiction for acquiring land for Bypass - Court found that construction of bypass falls within the definition and purpose of highway under the Act, justifying the acquisition proceedings. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners own various lands intended for acquisition to develop a bypass along State Highway No. 79, challenged the notification issued in 2021 alleging procedural violations.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners' challenge to the acquisition was repelled, with directions to pay market value for the land as per date of possession rather than date of notification.

Issues: Legality of acquisition under Section 15 without prior survey under Section 14; alleged arbitrariness in executing notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court concluded that non-compliance with Section 14 does not invalidate the acquisition if public interest is served, asserting that bypass construction inherently meets highway definitions and purposes, thereby justifying the acquisition process.

Result: Petition disposed of directing compensation based on market value as of possession date.

Table of Content
1. notification of land acquisition under highways act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contention on compliance with section 14 requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 19)
3. judicial interpretation of 'highway' and acquisition purposes. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 22)
4. importance of equitable compensation in land acquisition. (Para 14 , 23)
5. final judgment on land compensation pursuant to acquisition. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are the owners of land in Sy.Nos.232, 233, 229/A, 235/A, 235/B, and 224/1 of Madhuvanahalli village, Palya Hobli, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District [for easy reference, these lands are hereafter together referred to as the 'subject properties'], and the petitioners have impugned the notification dated 05.04.2021 [Annexure-H] issued under the provisions of Section 15 of the KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAYS ACT , 1964 [for short, 'the Highways Act'] insofar as the subject properties.

2. The circumstances preceding the issuance of the impugned notification dated 05.04.2021 are that on 07.06.2017, the second respondent has issued a public notification stating that the Government has accorded its approval for purchase of lands required for the purposes of developing State Highway No. 79 [between Kollegal and Hanur] over a distance of 23.800 kms under KSHIP-3 Project Package - 1A and the lands mentioned in the schedule appended to the public notification would be necessary for such purpose. The subject properties are mentioned in this public notification.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners are issued with the notice dated 09.06.2017 informing that the necessary proceedings will be conducted on 22.06.2017 at 10am in the morning to ascertain the extents as also the owner of the lands abutting the State Highway and that there is necessary approval for compulsory acquisition of the lands for the aforesaid purpose under Section 15 of the Highways Act. Admittedly, this notice, though dated 09.06.2017, is served on the petitioners' representatives only on 22.06.2017 at 6.50 pm.

4. On 09.11.2017, a public meeting is held under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District for fixing the price in the event there is a voluntary sale of the land required for the purposes of the project. The proceedings recorded the details of participation, and for the present purposes the following two paragraphs would be crucial inasmuch as there is reference to the measures taken to identify the lands that are required for acquisition and the participation by the power of attorney of the first to forth petitioners:

After this meeting, the impugned notification dated 05.04.2021 is issued under Section 15 of the Highways Act. In the meanwhile, on behalf of the petitioners, an application is also filed for changing the pathway of the proposed bypass as part of the development of the aforesaid State Highway between Kollegal to Hanur. The development of the road, including the construction of a substantial part of the bypass, is almost complete (1).

(1) A google image is produced, and it is referred to in the course of this order.

5. Sri Onkara K.B., learned counsel for the petitioners urges three grounds in support of the petitioners' challenge to the acquisition proceedings and these three grounds are as follows:

5.1 The acquisition under Section 15 of the Highways Act must necessarily be preceded by a survey as contemplated under Section 14 . The notice dated 09.06.2017 purportedly under Section 16 of the Highways Act is issued to the petitioners informing them that the necessary proceedings for identification and demarcation would be held on 22.06.2017 at 11.00 am. The petitioners are served with the notice on the same day [22.06.2017] but after sunset at 6.50pm. The provisions of Section 14 of the Highways Act are mandatory, and because it cannot be disputed that these mandatory provisions have not been c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top