Lawful acquisition requires proper procedure, including compensation and possession, with any construction on acquired land deemed illegal if no legal basis exists.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

W.A.No.100171/2025 filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.104662/2024 (LA-UDA) and W.A.No.100172/2025 filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.106834/2024 (LA-RES).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the appellant claimed to be the owner of land bearing R.Sy.No.171/1 measuring 13 acre 20 guntas situated at Mummigatti village, Dharwad. The portion of the land of the appellant came to be acquired for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (‘KIADB’, for short) and then by the National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’, for short). The NHAI issued notice dated 29.07.2024 directing the appellant to demolish the construction put up by him on the acquired land. The appellant challenged notice dated 29.07.2024 in W.P.No.104662/2024 and also challenged the acquisition notification dated 28.05.2012, award passed by the NHAI in W.P.No.106834/2024. Learned Single Judge dismissed both the petitions. Being aggrieved, these appeals are filed.

3. Sri Shriharsh A.Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the 1 acre 14 guntas and without any lawful authority notice for demolition came to be issued by the authority. It is submitted that the revenue records never changed pursuant to the alleged acquisition. It is further submitted that there is no payment vouchers produced by the respondents for the 26 guntas of the remaining land which is in possession of the appellant and no compensation paid which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions. It is also submitted that the respondent – NHAI has never taken possession of 26 guntas of the land from the appellant and the appellant has already constructed the building over the said property by spending substantial amount. Hence, he seeks to quash the acquisition to the aforesaid extent and also to quash the impugned notice of demolition dated 29.07.2024 by allowing the appeals.

4. Per contra, Sri B.P.Mathapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – NHAI supports the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge and submits that the entire land of the appellant is acquired, he has received compensation, possession is taken and construction put up by the appellant is in the property of the NHAI. The alleged possession of the appellant is illegal and by encroachment which has rightly been appreciated by learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions which does not call for any interference. He seeks to dismiss the appeals.

5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

6. The material on record indicate that the appellant was the owner of land bearing R.Sy.No.171 measuring 14 acre 8 guntas situated at Mummigatti village as per the Akarband. The said extent of land has been acquired by the different authorities for different purposes. The particulars are extracted herein below:

7. The aforesaid tabular form indicates that the entire extent of the appellant’s land was acquired for public purpose from 1977 to 2014. The records produced by the NHAI clearly indicate that the lands referred in the tabul