Law mandates lawful acquisition processes and due compensation for properties, highlighting the obligation to adhere to statutory timelines for notifications under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

The CCC No.200108/2025 and CCC No.200122/2025 are filed for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202702/2015 connected with W.P.No.204497/2016 dated 07.12.2023 for civil disobedience vide Annexure-A and the appeals i.e., W.A.No.200207/2024, W.A.No.200239/2024, W.A.No.200241/2024 and W.A.No.200242/2024 are filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the very same order questioning the order of possession in the event of no acquisition proceedings are taken.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants before the learned Single Judge while seeking the relief of writ of mandamus and for a direction to the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners properties which are more fully described in the said writ petitions that the petitioner in W.P.No.204497/2016 was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing CTS No.1126/1-C (1126/C). The complainant/petitioner claims in the writ petition that he had constructed three floor building (ground + two second floors) by investing lakhs of rupees and several business establishments wherein running the same in the said building and also the building furnished with modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so as to provide proper and competitive services to the customers.

3. The case of complainant/petitioner in W.P. No.202702/2015, is that petitioner was a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 , engaged in the business of banking having long standing reputation and huge turnover. It was catering to the financial and credit requirements of the people of Bijapur and same was situated in the property bearing CTS No.1738/1A/2. The petitioner has constructed three floor building (Ground + two floors) by investing huge crores of rupees. The building was furnished with modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so as to provide proper and competitive services to the customers.

4. In both the petitions, it is contended that respondent No.4-Corporation with an intention to implement the Master plan of the year 2006 to widen the main road (Mahatma Gandhi road) to an extent of 100 feet (30 meters), with high handedness demolished the land of adjoining land owners and illegally threatened to demolish the properties belonging to the petitioners. Hence, sought for the relief of mandamus, directing the respondents not to venture any illegal acts without due process of law. After demolition, the possession has been taken for the formation of road, which has been completed.

5. It is also contended that respondent No.4 had issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to express their willingness to accept the compensation of Rs.6,56,766.80 to an extent of 251.89 square feet in W.P.No.204497/2016 and Rs.41,46,512/- to an extent of 330 square feet in WP No.202702/2015 of the properties belonging to the petitioners which were required for widening the road.

6. It is contended that petitioners cooperated with respondent No.4 as the properties were required for widening of the road and the same was for a public purpose and agreed for the properties to be taken for widening of the road, but they have agreed to the same subject to the condition that suitable compensation would be paid inconsonance with the market rate prevalent as on the date of taking-up possession of the properties belonging to the petitioners. Hence, the amount which was offered by respondent No.4 was received under protest, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.

7. It is also contended that some adjoining owners and land losers approached this Court in W.P.No.200660/2016 connected with several other writ petitions and the said petitions were disposed off and a compromise was arrived by the parties, awarding higher compensation.

8. It is also contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in view of the other W.P.No.206277/2016 connected with other writ p