Karnataka High Court

Nagaraja S vs National Highways Authority Of India on 29 July, 2024

                                        -1-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB
                                                     WA No. 956 of 2024




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                     PRESENT

                    THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                        AND

                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                        WRIT APPEAL NO. 956 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

             BETWEEN:
             1.   NAGARAJA S
                  AGED 62 YEARS
                  S/O G. SANNALINGAPPA
                  # 67/4, GROUND FLOOR
                  5TH CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN
                  BEHIND BUNTS SANGH
                  BASAVESHWAR LAYOUT
                  VIJAYANAGAR
                  BENGALURU - 560 040
                                                           ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI NAGARAJA S, APPELLANT-IN-PERSON)
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B AND:
Location:    1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
High Court      NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE
of Karnataka    KSRTC BUS DEPOT ROAD
                  CHITRADURGA - 577 501
                  REPRESENTED BY THE
                  SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

             2.   PROJECT DIRECTOR
                  NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                  PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
                  NEAR J.M.I.T, NH-4 (201 KM)
                  CHITRADURGA - 577 502
                                -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB
                                            WA No. 956 of 2024




3.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     AND ARBITRATOR
     OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     AND ARBITRATOR
     TUMKURU - 572 101
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
 FOR RESPONDENT No.3)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT
PETITION No. 20724/2023 (LA-RES) DATED 09.05.2024.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Heard Mr. Nagaraja S, appellant-party-in-person and learned

Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for

respondent No.3.

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

2. The appellant has addressed this appeal against the

judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Writ Petition

No.20724 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the

petition refusing to grant of any relief to the appellant-petitioner

holding that the claim of the petitioner for compensation for the

acquired land was misconceived, both on facts and in law.

2.1 The first prayer in the petition was to declare the Preliminary

Notification dated 03.11.2000 and the subsequent Final Notification

dated 11.09.2001 as void. The second set of notifications which

were challenged were the Preliminary Notification dated

17.08.2012 and the Final Notification dated 09.07.2013.

2.2 They were the notifications by which the land of the petitioner

admeasuring 6 Guntas and 1 Gunta out of the said survey number

respectively were sought to be acquired. It was the further prayer

to set aside the sale deed dated 21.11.2006 which was executed

by the appellant-petitioner in favour of the NHAI in respect of 2178

sq. ft. of land, approximately 2 Guntas.

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

2.3 There was yet another prayer to direct the NHAI to pay

damages caused to the petitioner for acquiring 9 Guntas of land.

3. It appears that the land belonging to the petitioner bearing

survey No.184 at Urukere Village was subjected to acquisition by

respondent No.1-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)

under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the NH Act'). The preliminary and final notifications

under the NH Act came to be issued which became subject matter

of challenge in the writ petition.

3.1 The facts on record show that on 11.09.2001, the Notification

under Section 3D of the NH Act was issued, whereby the land

stood vested in the Central Government. Though the land

admeasuring 1000 sq. mts. of survey No.184 was initially notified

for acquisition, only 600 sq. mts. was finally included which was in

the name of the petitioner and his mother.

3.2 Two awards dated 31.12.2002 and 14.02.2005 came to be

passed by the competent authority and amount of Rs.90,543/- and

Rs.1,46,314/- was determined in the two awards which were paid

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

to the petitioner on 29.12.2003 and 14.03.2005. Thus, the

petitioner received total amount of Rs.2,36,857/- towards

compensation in respect of 600 sq. mts. of land included in the

acquisition notification.

3.3 Thereafter, 2 Acres which was additional extent of 2178 sq.

ft. of land in the same survey number came to be sold by the

petitioner to the NHAI for sale consideration of Rs.78,953/- which

amount was paid on 03.11.2006. Thus, as above, total 6 Guntas of

land was acquired by the government under the provisions of the

NH Act and the other 2 Guntas was acquired by way of direct

purchase as above and the compensation as well as the sale

consideration was paid to the petitioner.

3.4 The petitioner was aggrieved by the amount of

compensation. Therefore, he sought reference to the Arbitrator

under the provisions of the NH Act. The Arbitrator passed the

award dated 28.07.2010. Barring the extent of land in respect of

which the appeal was preferred, the Arbitrator enhanced the

compensation by 50% from Rs.36.25 to Rs.54.40 per sq. ft.

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

3.5 The petitioner, thereafter, started litigating. He filed Writ

Petition No.40924 of 2010 to contend that though 9 Guntas of land

was acquired, but towards 1 Gunta he was not paid any

compensation. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the

compensation which was awarded by the Arbitrator. The NHAI

offered the amount of compensation for 1 Gunta of land upon

petitioner's representation.

3.6 Yet another Writ Petition No.33021 of 2011 came to be

instituted by the petitioner seeking direction for payment of

compensation for the entire 9 Guntas of land. While disposing of

the said petition, the Court recorded a finding that 1 Gunta of land

of the petitioner was taken possession of by the NHAI in the year

2001 itself. The petitioner declined to execute sale deed in respect

of 1 gunta of land. The Court directed the NHAI to return the

compensation in respect of the said area of land. The NHAI

proceeded to issue notification in respect of 101 sq. mts. that is 1

Gunta of land which was already brought under acquisition and

possession was taken.

3.7 Then followed, series of litigations by the petitioner. Writ

Petition No.49425 of 2012 was the third petition, whereby prayer

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

was made to drop the acquisition for 1 Gunta. The petition was

dismissed. The next was Writ Appeal No.2889 of 2013 against the

aforesaid order which also came to be dismissed on 06.06.2013.

The NHAI issued declaration under Section 3G of the NH Act on

09.07.2013 for acquisition of 1 Gunta of land. Award dated

30.09.2013 was passed and compensation of Rs.2,72,250/- as well

as sum of Rs.68,470/- came to be awarded to the petitioner

towards use and occupation of 1 Gunta of land from 25.11.2006 to

30.09.2013.

3.8 The petitioner again challenged the said award dated

30.09.2013 by filing Writ Petition No.54376 of 2013, which

challenge was rejected. The petitioner approached the Arbitrator

who enhanced the compensation from Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per sq.

ft. Further, Writ Petition No.6289 of 2015 and Writ Petition

No.3025 of 2016 were filed in which the petitioner again called in

question the acquisition and prayed for grant of compensation.

3.9 There was no end to the filing of petitions by the petitioner

since 6th Writ Petition No.20128 of 2016 and 7th Writ Petition

No.25492 of 2019, 8th Writ Petition No.326 of 2022 and the 9th

petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

Constitution came to be filed. In all of them, the very acquisition

was challenged and the compensation/damages were claimed.

Even the Supreme Court dismissed the petition before it on

01.09.2023. The instant was the 10th writ petition again seeking to

challenge the acquisition.

4. Learned Single Judge summarized the facts about the

acquisition of the land of the petitioner and payment of

compensation as under, extracting findings from paragraphs 37 of

the judgment,

"an extent of 6 guntas (600 square meters) was acquired under the notifications dated 03.11.2000 (under Section 3A) and a declaration dated 11.09.2001 (under Section 3G of the NH Act). Two awards were passed in respect of said extent of 6 guntas and a sum of Rs.2,36,857/- was paid to the petitioner. As against the payment offered by the competent authority, the petitioner sought reference to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator enhanced the compensation from Rs.36.25/- per square foot to Rs.54.40/- per square foot. ... "

4.1 It was further observed in paragraph 38 as under,

"after the first acquisition, the petitioner also executed a sale deed on 21.11.2006 and conveyed 2,178 sq. ft (2 guntas) of land, for which he was paid a consideration of Rs.78,953/- (at Rs.36.25 per square foot). In fact, even in respect of this land which the petitioner sold, the arbitrator had enhanced the value of the land from

NC: 2024:KHC:30849-DB

Rs.36.25/- per square foot to Rs.54.40/- per square foot and the petitioner has also received said amount. In view of the fact that the petitioner had sold 2 guntas of land under a registered sale deed in the year 2006, it would not be permissible for him to seek setting aside the sale deed executed in the year 2006 by way of this writ petition."

5. It was evident and clear from the above facts that in respect

of the first acquisition of 6 Guntas of land, the petitioner not only

received the compensation but, also earned enhancement in the

compensation as granted by the Arbitrator which became final.

The two Guntas land was acquired which was an outright sale.

The petitioner's lands were acquired in three sets. One part was

by way of sale to the NHAI for all the 9 Guntas of land for which

compensation was paid and even enhanced compensation was

received by the petitioner. For the use of 1 Gunta of land, the

compensation was as well as damages were paid and also

received by the petitioner in the year 2000.

6. The entire case of the petitioner in the writ petition and the