Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivakrishna Mandir vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
WA No. 100275 of 2025
IN
WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100275 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.100328 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SHIVAKRISHNA MANDIR
A DENOMINATIONAL TEMPLE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI NANDAN
S/O MARUTIRAO BALVALLI
AGE: 70 YEARS
Digitally SIR SIDHAPPA KAMBLI ROAD
signed by
VIJAYA P OPP MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
Location: HUBBALLI - 580 020
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI VIKRAM S/O RAGHVESH SIRUR
AGE 77 YEARS
OCC BUSINESS
R/O 19 SIR SIDHAPPA KAMBLI ROAD
OPP HDMC, HUBBALLI - 580 020
3. THE NAGARKAR LIBRARY
A PUBLIC TRUST
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
WA No. 100275 of 2025
IN
WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES)
HC-KAR
BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI VIJAY S/O GAJANAN BIJUR
AGE 79 YEARS
OCC PRESIDENT
NO.27, LAMINGTON ROAD
SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD
OPPOSITE SUBURBAN POLICE STATION
HUBBALLI - 580 020
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORT BHAVAN
1. PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI - 110 001
(REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)
2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
(AN AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT 1988)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT G 5 AND 6
SECTOR 10, DWARKA
NEW DELHI - 110 075
(REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY - NHAI
1ST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA - 580 001
DHARWAD
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
WA No. 100275 of 2025
IN
WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES)
HC-KAR
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB DIVISION
VISHWESHWAR NAGAR
HUBBALLI - 580 032.
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 001
DHARWAD
6. M/S JANDU CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PVT LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
A - 21, SECOND FLOOR, PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE,
PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110 034
7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
HUBBALLI OFFICE
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNAJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S.B. ANCHATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG A/W
SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R3 TO R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
WRIT PETITION NO.100328/2025 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT
THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS: I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.02.2025 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISMISSING
W.P.NO.100328/2025; II) ALLOW THE PETITION IN
W.P.NO.100328/2025 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 21.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT PRINCIPAL
BENCH, BENGALURU THIS DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
WA No. 100275 of 2025
IN
WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES)
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The writ petition filed challenging the notification under section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 [for short the "N.H. Act"] came to be disposed of by virtue of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.100581/2024 c/w W.A.No. 100584/2024. The Division Bench took note of the passing of the final notification under Section 3D of the N.H. Act and observed that the grievance of the petitioners could not be considered in light of the subsequent events and further liberty was reserved to file a writ petition challenging the final notification issued under Section 3D of the N.H. Act. While W.A.No.100581/2024 was disposed of in terms of the above observation, W.A.No.100584/2024 was disposed of with an observation that the acquisition itself had lapsed as though preliminary notification was issued on 09.03.2023, no final -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR notification had been issued within one year and accordingly, the acquisition had lapsed.
2. Thereafter the appellants herein filed W.P.No.100328/2025 which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.02.2025. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition in terms of the following:
"i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ii) Respondent No.3 - SLAO and respondent No.7
Assistant Director of Land Records are directed to mark out the area of the land of the petitioners which are going to be utilized in terms of the acquisition notification in CTS No.2960, 2961, 2989, 2990, 2991 and 2995 within one week from today, that is, on or before 4.03.2025. The petitioner is granted a week's time thereafter to file any additional statement of objections in respect of the marked area alone to indicate any special circumstances as to why that land is not required to be acquired which shall be submitted on or before 11.03.2025 to the SLAO for consideration in passing of necessary orders."
3. The observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.100328/2025 are as follows: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR a. Reference to the contentions of the petitioners:
i. Though the properties of the petitioners are found in the notification, however, the extent and boundaries of the land are absent and only the extent of the land is mentioned.
ii. Even under Section 3D notification, extent of land in hectares is mentioned and accordingly the petitioners could not file their objections to the acquisition notification. iii. That the assertion of the National Highway Authority of India [for short "NHAI"] that as on 21.09.2023 when order was passed in W.P.No.4352/2022, 43.55% of physical progress had been made, was a factually incorrect statement.
b. Reference to contentions of the respondent: i. The details of the properties mentioned under the Section 3A and 3D notifications are sufficient enough to enable the petitioners to consider and submit reply. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR ii. Insofar as the extent of work that has been carried out, majority of the work was completed on Government property on existing roads and not on the acquired properties under the N.H. Act.
c. Findings by the learned Single Judge: i. As the extent of land sought to be acquired being very small, it would not be capable of mentioning the exact boundaries, including the width and length. ii. The approximate extent of land acquired as indicated in the notification would be sufficient. iii. The decision in the Shamrao's case as relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable as all the properties belonged to a single owner. As regards survey numbers and the extent, there was no dispute nor was there any confusion regarding ownership or extent. iv. The challenge to the notification is as regards a small extent of land being just about one hectare and when the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR entirety of the project and extent is looked into, area belonging to the petitioners is negligible. v. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition while directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Director of Land Records to mark out the land of the petitioners which was going to be utilized in the various CTS numbers within a period of one week and the petitioners were then entitled to file additional statement of objections in respect of the marked area to make out any special circumstance as to why the land was not required to be acquired and the Special Land Acquisition Officer was at liberty to then consider the same and pass necessary orders.
4. Heard both sides.
5. One of the main contentions urged by the appellants is that the extent of property sought to be -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR acquired was not clearly identifiable and accordingly opportunity to file objections could not be exercised.
6. Insofar as such contention is concerned, at the outset, it ought to be noted that there was a recital in the preliminary notification itself which reads as follows:
"The land and other details of the land acquired under their notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the aforesaid office of the competent authority"
7. Though much has been said that plans were not available even with the authority by placing reliance on the RTI responses by the office of the competent authority as well as by the authority of the Assistant Director of Land Records, the affidavit and document filed before this Court would demonstrate that sketches demarcating proposed acquisition were present in the files. The affidavit of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority, National Highways, PWD, Dharwad, was filed in Court on 12.08.2025 and there are specific averments that a map
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR was prepared after conducting a detailed survey which indicates the properties falling within the project area as well as properties proposed to be acquired. Such 'detailed map' prepared along with the proposal of the notification under section 3A of N.H. Act is produced as document No.4. 'Detailed drawings' signed by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Hubbali, are also enclosed as document No.6.
8. It is specifically averred that during the implementation that there were minor modifications/ changes which have been made and the same was approved by the Central Government.
9. The memo of production of documents was also filed on 21.08.2025 and such memo contained the certificate by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority to the effect that the notification under Section 3A of N.H. Act was prepared as per the JMC (Joint Measurement Certification), apart from the sketches even
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR prior to the notification under Section 3A, when proposal under Section 3A was forwarded, the proposal was enclosed with a sketch which would clearly demarcate the extent of land sought to be acquired graphically. Sketches are detailed and demarcation is clear. This would indicate that demarcation as reflected in the sketches was admittedly part of the record and was in fact part of the records in the office of the respondent authority. The reply to the RTI queries notwithstanding files would indicate that the sketches were available.
10. The Apex Court in the judgment of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and Another v. Tanya Energy Enterprises through its Managing Partner1 while referring to the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner2, has opined that the Court can in appropriate circumstances and specifically where public interest is involved, go beyond the 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1979 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR order if the file of records contains the reasons that would support the order on ground available in the files. However, certain procedure is prescribed for giving an opportunity to the affected parties of such other grounds. The broad principle could be extended in the present case as well, to enable traversing beyond the RTI response when the files and materials would indicate otherwise. Accordingly, it is clear that records produced does indicate demarcation.
11. It is also necessary to notice that the ground available to object to the notification under Section 3C of the N.H. Act is rather limited i.e., objection can be raised only as regards use of the land in terms of the scheme of the N.H. Act. After the publication of Section 3A notification, objections will have to be filed and the land owners are to be heard before the declaration under Section 3D is made. Once the declaration under Section 3D of the N.H. Act is made, the land vests with the Central Government.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR
12. A reading of Section 3A of the N.H.Act would indicate that the Central Government may declare its intention to acquire the land where it may be required for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway. Under Section 3C, the land owner may object to the use of the land for the purposes mentioned. While no doubt under Section 3A brief description is required to be mentioned, the Apex Court in the case of Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and Others3 [Barangore], held that non mentioning the portion of the land and absence of the plan with the authority would vitiate the notification. However, in the present case, there are plans and there has been demarcation, which fact is borne out from the records. While the gazette notification does mention the availability of the plan unlike the facts presented in Barangore Jute factory case. The observation of the Apex Court in Barangore Jute Factory case must be read in the context of 3 (2005) 13 SCC 477
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR absence of plan. If plans were available, the Court may have ruled otherwise. This is further fortified by the observation of the Apex Court in Para 7, "The availability of a plan would have made all the difference. If there is a plan, the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately."
13. Another important aspect as regards judicial review of land acquisition notifications is that the Courts have held that despite existence of procedural lapses, interference should be in exceptional circumstances.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Barangore while recording a finding that the notification under Section 3A of the N.H. Act was invalid has however, refused to interfere observing that quashing of the notification where substantial construction was completed would lead to several difficulties and practical problems. Observations made at Para 14 are as follows:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR "14. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of a national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage......"
15. Similar position was reiterated in the case of Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee for Fruits and Vegetables, Golimangala v. N Krishnappa and Others4 (see Para 6 to 9). In the said case, the notification suffered from legal defects, by taking note of the law laid down in Barangore (supra), the Apex Court refused to interfere with the illegality while moulding the appropriate relief.4
(2017) 13 SCC 239
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR
16. In the present case also, any procedural defect cannot have the effect of invalidating the acquisition while taking note of the advanced stage of work. It is the specific case of the respondent - State that substantial work in the project was completed by utilizing the existing road by proposed project consisting of putting up of elevated corridor and it is only when the existing road width was not sufficient, acquisition of private property became inevitable. Accordingly, the assertion that 43.55% of project was already completed needs to be taken note of and setting aside the acquisition at this stage would lead to practical difficulties.
17. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order upholding the land acquisition notification would not call for interference in light of the discussion made above. The reasons for supporting of the conclusion though on different grounds, requires to be adopted taking note of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR public interest involved and in the absence of any malafides being demonstrated.
18. It also necessary to notice the assertion of the respondent - State that as regards the affected parties, there are about 120 such persons but however, except the three appellants the other 117 persons have not raised any objection. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of May George v. Special Tahsildar and Others5 has made a passing observation that where objections is by a few affected persons relating to a negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired, there could be a leaning towards non interference. Similarly, in the case of Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai and another v. State of Maharashtra and others6, the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the acquisition in Para 93 has observed "At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that in several situations, the needs of the many must outweigh that of the few. We say 5 (2010) 13 SCC 98 6 (2023) 11 SCC 79
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB WA No. 100275 of 2025 IN WP No.100328 of 2025 (LA-RES) HC-KAR so not with any fervour nor as a mantra, but as a solemn acknowledgment of the realities of modern life. The question of what constitutes "public interest" has been contemplated upon multiple times and the history of this Court is full of musings by different Benches on the exact contours of this phrase in the context of various situations and statutes." Accordingly, in the present case as well, it would be appropriate to lean towards upholding the validity of notification.
19. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE VP