Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavaraj vs National Highway Authority Of ... on 8 December, 2020

Author: Ashok S. Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

W.P.NO.20298/2017 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O S.BASAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

R/O HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TALUK: KUDLIGI,

DIST: BELLARY-583126.

.. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR BURJI & SRI.HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVS.)

AND:

1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

 G5 AND G6 SECTOR, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075.

2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

NAGASANDRA, NEAR DEEPAK BUS STAND,

TUMKUR ROAD, N H 4, BANGALORE-560073.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITOIN OFFICER,

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, 1ST FLOOR,

AEROPLANE BUILDING, V.C.EXTENSION,

CHITRADURGA-577501.

4. THE PROJET MANAGER,

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

NEAR JMIT CAMPUS, NH 4 (KM 201),

CHITRADURGA-577502.

5. THE STATE GOVT OF KARNATAKA,

REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,

BANGALORE.

.. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADV. FOR R1-R4,

 SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R5)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO

DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. ISSUE A DIRECTION DIRECTING

THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION TREATING

THE NOTIFICATION AS THAT OF 2017 ONLY. TO GRANT A RELIEF TO

THE EXTENT THAT THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO

THE NOTIFICATION No.RD678 AQE 69(i) DATED 28.12.1969 TO THE

GOVT. OF MYSORE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE 15.01.1970 ISSUED

UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 ARE LAPSED AND

FURTHER THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THERETO MAY BE

ORDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITONER.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the
notification dated 28.12.1969 published in the Mysore Gazette dated 15.01.1970 issued under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further consequential benefits thereto may be ordered in favour of
the petitioner and also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the
petitioner from the land in question without due process of law.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that, petitioner is an agriculturist and has purchased
land bearing Sy.No.469 measuring 4.86 acres situated at Banavihakkalu village, Taluk Kudligi under
registered sale deed dated 27.05.2011. The petitioner after purchasing the property, revenue
records were changed in the name of the petitioner. The land in Sy.No.469 was converted into non-
agricultural purpose as early as in the year 2008. The petitioner is utilizing the said property for non-
agricultural purpose. The respondents-NHAI have taken up widening and expansion of NH-13. In the
first week of Marcy 2017 the NHAI have visited the said land and they were marking certain
portions. On enquiry, it was informed to the petitioner that NH-13 is newly numbered as NH-50 and
NHAI are taking up widening of the road under NHDP Phase 3 Project. On 02.03.2017 an
endorsement was issued to the effect that Sy.No.469 of Banavihakkalu village is not acquired. The
respondents have no right to lay a road in the petition property without initiating any acquisition
proceedings. Earlier, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of writ petition. The said
application was allowed and writ petition was amended and the petitioner has challenged the
acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1969. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Respondent No.4-NHAI filed statement of objections stating that the portion of land to an extent
of 32 cents was acquired under Notification dated 28.12.1969 and the same was published in the
Mysore Gazette dated 15.01.1970. The original owner has received the compensation in respect of
32 cents and executed a receipt and signed in the register extract and handed over the possession of
32 cents to the acquiring body. The petitioner has purchased the land on 27.05.2011 to an extent of
4.86 acres in Sy.No.469 including the area which has been acquired by the State. The NHAI is in
possession to an extent of 32 cents. It is also pleaded that there is delay and laches on the part of
the petitioner in challenging the notification dated 28.12.1969 published in the Mysore Gazatte on
15.01.1970. Hence, respondent No.4 prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI
and learned Additional Government Advocate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased the land measuring 4.86
acres under registered sale deed dated 27.05.2011. Prior to purchase of the land under reference,
the petitioner has made an enquiry about title and the name of the vendor of the petitioner was
reflecting as owner to an extent of 4.86 acres in the revenue records. On the basis of the records,
the petitioner has purchased the land. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. Hence, the NHAI
without initiating acquisition proceedings has no right to widen the existing National Highway. He
submits that the petitioner came to know about the acquisition of 32 cents only when respondent
No.4 has filed statement of objections. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for
amendment of the writ petition and the same came to be allowed. He further submits that the
Deputy Commissioner has already been passed an order converting agricultural land to non-
agriculture purpose. He further submits that petitioner is in possession of the land to an extent of
4.86 acres. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that land to an extent of 32 cents in
Sy.No.469 has been acquired by the State Government and the same has been handed over to NHAI
in the year 1970. On the basis of the acquisition initiated by the government, the NHAI is in
possession to an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.469 and landlord is in possession of the aforesaid land.
The petitioner has no right and title to an extent of 32 cents, since as on the date of execution of the
registered sale deed by his vendor, land to an extent of 32 cents has already been acquired. Hence,
the petitioner has not acquired any right, title and interest to an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.469. He
further submits that NHAI has not utilized any portion of the land belonging to the petitioner beyond
32 cents. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the NHAI.

8. Perused the records and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

9. It is not in dispute that earlier Sy.No.469 was owned by Edigra Venkatammagari Rangamma. The
said land was acquired by the State Government for formation of National Highway under the
notification dated 28.12.1969. The Government has taken possession from Edigra Venkatammagari
Rangamma. The original owner has withdrawn the compensation for the portion of land acquired
and signed in the register acknowledging for having received compensation. The said Edigra
Venkatammagari Rangamma sold the entire land to Sri.C.Balasubramanyappa under registered sale
deed including the acquired land. The said Balasubramanyappa has sold the land to an extent of 4.86
acres to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 27.05.2011. The original owner had no right
to execute the registered sale deed including the portion of the acquired land by the State
Government. The vendor of the petitioner has not acquired any right, title to an extent of 32 cents as
the same has been acquired by the Government prior to the execution of sale deed. Thus, the
registered sale deed executed by the vendor of petitioner in favour of the petitioner to an extent of
32 cents in Sy.No.469 is ab-initio void and petitioner has no right to claim under the policy. Though
the name of NHAI was not appearing in the revenue records, it is not a ground to the vendor of the
petitioner to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The duty cast upon the
petitioner to make enquiry as per Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the NHAI Sri.Shivaraj Balloli submits that NHAI has not used
any portion of land of the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner that if NHAI used
the land beyond 32 cents can seek for appropriate relief.

11. Since the vendor of the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner
is estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings. I would like to place reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar & Another Vs. Union of India &
Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 8 held as under:
"8. It has been laid down that the purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question
proceedings for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right
in the land as the sale is ab initio void and has no right to claim land under the policy."

12. In view of the above discussion, and also considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notification dated
28.12.1969 published in the Mysore Gazatte dated 15.01.1970.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-