Property rights remain intact unless formally acquired, and compensation is owed for land utilized by the state without due process under Article 300A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. 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. 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- 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 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.

(f) It is also contended that the plaintiff had the suit schedule property valued, an