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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
IN
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
IN
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
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1979
(1978) 1 SCC 405
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
IN
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
(2005) 13 SCC 477
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
IN
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.
(2017) 13 SCC 239
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
IN
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
(2010) 13 SCC 98
(2023) 11 SCC 79
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15298-DB
IN
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
