- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20383 OF 2021 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 1(d) 1(e) SMT.BYRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S D. NAGARAJ S/O LATE BYARAMMA AND LATE DODDAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D. MANJULA D/O LATE BYARAMMA AND LATE DODDAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SMT. D. PRIMALA D/O LATE BYARAMMA AND LATE DODDAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SRI. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE BYARAMMA AND LATE DODDAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE BYARAMMA AND LATE DODDAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL PETITIONER Nos.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT KOLATHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RAKESH BHATT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 AND: 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PIU, BENGALURU (EXPRESSWAY) SY NO.13, 14TH KM, NAGASANDRA BENGALURU-560 073. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA CHENNAI EXPRESS HIGHWAY NO.678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA BADAVANE HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this seeking following reliefs: "a. "Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus direction the Respondents to consider the representation dated 11.10.2021 vide Annexure -J. (ai) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to deposit the remaining balance of award amount of Rs.67,10,548/- in the account of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of award amount". - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 2. Petitioner claims to be the erstwhile owner of the land bearing Sy.No.132/1 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas situated at Kolthuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, which was converted from agricultural to industrial purpose vide order No.BSAALN:SR(HO) 29-92-93. That the said land has been acquired by the respondent authority for the purpose of Chennai Express Highway Project and that compensation has been disbursed to the petitioner only in part and remaining balance of amount is yet to be paid. 3. That one Venkatamma had opposed disbursement of compensation in favour of the petitioner which was rejected by the respondent No.2. Said Venkatamma had challenged the said rejection in W.P.No.4360/2021 which was disposed of directing respondent No.1 to reconsider the statement of objection filed by said Venkatamma. Accordingly objection statement was reconsidered and rejected. Said Venkatamma had filed O.S.No.1206/2017 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking 1/3rd share in the property. That in view of the said suit the first respondent had ordered to release 2/3rd of the compensation in favour of the petitioner. The said order was challenged by Venkatamma in W.P.No.13048/2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 4. This Court by order dated 30.08.2021 in W.P.No.13048/2021 at paragraphs 2 and 3 has observed as under: "2. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that this writ petition need not be kept pending since all the parties are already before the Civil Court. The decision of the Civil Court shall be binding on the 1 respondent-Authority and the parties in the matter of apportionment of the compensation. In the meanwhile, the interest of the petitioner is required to be protected. Therefore, 1/3rd of the compensation shall not be disbursed. 2/3rd of the compensation may be disbursed to the other parties including second respondent. However, the parties in whose favour the compensation amount would be disbursed shall give an undertaking in the form of an indemnity bond that they will abide by the decision of the Civil Court. Ultimately, if the Civil Court decides that second respondent and all other parties jointly are not entitled for 2/3rd of the compensation, the portion of the compensation which was or which will be disbursed to the second respondents and all the other parties shall be refunded to the authority. 3. It is also made clear that although the first respondent authority has taken a decision that the second respondent herein is entitled to receive the compensation amount, now that the parties are before the Civil Court and the Civil Court is going to decide the entitlement of the parties, the first respondent-Authority shall ensure that it will collect indemnity bond from all the parties to whom the compensation is being released. Ultimately the compensation shall be disbursed in terms of their entitlement as decided by the Civil Court". 5. That the award passed by the respondent No.2 was on the basis of considering the nature of the land as agriculture which was subsequently amended on 30.06.2021 reassessing the land taking into consideration of the same having been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 converted. The award notice was issued for Rs.3,88,35,899/- assessing the value of land at Rs.2,694.64 sq. feet. That as per the direction of this Court petitioner was entitled for disbursement of 2/3rd of the compensation. Accordingly, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 on 28.07.2021 informing that cheque dated 16.07.2021 has been prepared for payment of compensation amount of Rs.2,58,93,061/- through RTGS. However, second respondent has disbursed only Rs.1,91,80,044/- out of Rs.2,58,93,061/- and the remaining sum of Rs.67,10,548/- has not been paid. 6. That the petitioner had made a representation on 11.10.2021 seeking release of the balance amount as per the amended order dated 30.06.2021 in respect of the converted land. However, respondent No.2 has not taken any action in releasing the amount. Hence, the petition. 7. Objection statements have been filed by respondent authority alleging suppression of facts by the petitioner. It is contended that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the rate of compensation she is required to avail the alternate remedy as provided under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 1956. It is specifically contended that the total extent of land forming part of Sy.No.132/1 is 6 acres 16 guntas of which only an extent of 5361 sq. mtrs of land has been acquired. Though the petitioner claim that an extent of 2 acres of land forming part of said 6 acres 16 guntas of land has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, on verification of records and the survey that was conducted by the respondent No.2, it was found the acquired land measuring 5361 sq. mtrs does not fall within the area converted for non agricultural purpose and same falls within the remaining extent of 4 acres 16 guntas of land. That the converted land as claimed by the petitioner forms far beyond the land acquired. As such the petitioner was given compensation considering the land to be agricultural dry land. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for petitioners is unable to point out from the records the exact location of 2 acres of non agricultural land within the total extent of 6 acres 16 guntas. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 10. Since only an extent of 5361 sq. mtrs of land is admittedly acquired and the petitioner is insisting the said portion to be falling within the said 2 acres of non agricultural land, the identification of the land is required to be established. 11. The other issue involved in the matter is regarding apportionment of compensation to be determined and payable by the respondent authorities. 12. In view of the above, and enabling the petitioner to establish the location of land, this Court at this juncture deems it appropriate to relegate the matter to the respondent authorities concerned to re-ascertain the location of the property being claimed by the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 13. Petitioners are at liberty to submit a fresh representation within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with all necessary documents if any before the concerned authorities to point out actual existence of the property acquired, that is, if it is falling within 2 acres of land which is converted from agriculture to non agricultural purpose or otherwise. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2845 WP No. 20383 of 2021 14. Respondent authorities shall consider such representation and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10