- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100328 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. SHRI SHIVAKRISHNA MANDIR A DENOMINATIONAL TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI NANDAN S/O MARUTI RAO BALVALLI, AGE. 70 YEARS, SIR SIDHAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HUBBALLI 580020 SRI VIKRAM S/O RAGHVESH SIRUR AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O #19, SIR SIDHAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, OPP: HDMC, HUBBALLI-580020. THE NAGARKAR LIBRARY A PUBLIC TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI VIJAY S/O GAJANAN BIJUR, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT NO. 27, LAMINGTON ROAD, SIR SIDHAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, OPP: SUBURBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI-580020. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU ADVOCATE REP. SRI. SURESH N KINI & SRI. N.S. KINI., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AN AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1988) HAVING THE OFFICE AT G 5 & 6, SECTOR 10, DWARKA NEW DELHI- 110075 (REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY-NHAI 1ST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA DHARWAD. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB-DIVISION, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. M/S JANDU CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT #A, 21, SECOND FLOOR, PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. THE ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HUBBALLI OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 SRI. S.B. ANCHATAGERI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. GANGADHAR., J.M. AAG A/W SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R3-5 & 7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE E DATED 14.06.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3. SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT 1956, IN NO. S.O. 2307 (E) NOTIFYING THE LANDS TO BE ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WIDENING/TWO LANE WITH PAVED SHOULDER/FOUR LANING ETC.) MAINTENANCE, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF NH-63, 4 AND 218 AS MUCH IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS NO.1 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES BEARING CTS NO. 2989, 2990, 2991, THE PETITIONERS NO.2 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES CTS NO. 2960, 2961 AND THE PETITIONERS NO.3 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES CTS NO. 2995, OF CTS WARD NO.1, SITUATED AT LAMINGTON ROAD, NOW KNOWN AS SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, HUBBALLI AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notification produced herewith and marked as Annexure E dated 14.06.2024 issued under section 3. Sub-section (1) of the National Highways Act 1956, in No. S.O. 2307 (E) notifying the lands to be acquired for the purpose of widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.) Maintenance, management and operation of NH-63, 4 and 218 as much it relates to the petitioners no.1 immovable properties bearing CTS No. 2989, 2990, 2991, the petitioners no.2 immovable properties CTS No. 2960, 2961 and the petitioners no.3 immovable properties CTS No. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 2995, of CTS Ward no.1, situated at Lamington Road, now known as Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubballi, b. Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Final Notification produced herewith and marked as Annexure-L dated 12.11.2024 issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act 1956, in no. S.O. 4886 (E) declaring the lands to be acquired for the purpose of widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc. Maintenance, management and operation of NH-63, 4 and 218 as much it relates to the operation of NH-63, 4 and 218 as much it relates to the petitioners no.1 immovable properties bearing CTS No. 2989, 2990, 2991, the petitioners no.2 immovable properties CTS No. 2960, 2961 and the petitioners no.3 immovable properties CTS No. 2995, of CTS Ward no.1, situated at Lamington Road, now known as Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubballi. c. Direct the respondents not to dispossess from or disturb the petitioners from rightfully enjoying the property without the due process of law d. Pass such other and incidental order/s as are deemed just and equitable by this hon’ble court under the circumstances to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the lands of the petitioners have sought to be made use of for the purpose of establishing an elevated expressway without the petitioners being made aware of the extent and the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired inasmuch as in the notification issued under Section 3 of the National Highway Authorities of India Act, the properties of the petitioners are found - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 at Sl.Nos.42, 55, 56, 57 and 59. Except giving a reference to the square meters and hectares proposed to be acquired, there are no details as regards to the boundaries and the identification of the land mentioned in the 3D notification. 3. Even in the 3D notification issued on 12.11.2024 at Annexure-L, the properties of the petitioners are found mentioned at Sl.Nos.39, 52, 53, 54 and 56 and this time only the extent of land in hectares has been mentioned and as such, the petitioners could not reply to the acquisition notification expressing any of their objections. 4. Additionally, he submits that the NHAI has misled this Court when orders were passed in W.P.No.4352/2022 on 21.09.2023 inasmuch as it was contended that 43.55% of physical progress had been made as on 20.9.2023 when by that time the 3D notification had not been issued; the 3D notification having been issued on 12.11.2024. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 5. The further submission of Shri Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents could not have carried out any work until the 3D notification was issued and the reference made of 43.55% of work being done is completely misconceived and a mischievous statement to mislead this Court. 6. Taking into account the said submission, this Court vide its order dated 17.2.2025 had called upon Sri Mrutyunjay Hallikeri, learned counsel of appearing for the SLAO and the Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions and make their submission as to on what basis the percentage details were provided to this Court. 7. Today Shri Gangadhar, Additional Advocate General would submit that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is as if to indicate that a new road is being formed. What work is being undertaken is an elevated corridor over the existing - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 road which requires columns to be built on which the girders would be placed. The works being carried out for several kilometres of existing roads, the amount of 43.55% provided by the authorities was as regards the works carried out on the existing roads and no works on lands proposed to be acquired were carried out before the 3D Notification. 8. Apart therefrom, he submits that some works have been carried out in the government land as regards which, no objection by any person can be raised. 9. As regards the details not being available in the Section 3A and 3D notification, he submits that the details are sufficient enough for the petitioners to have considered the same and submitted a reply. The fact that the petitioners have filed the above petition would indicate that the petitioners are completely aware of the extent of acquisition and the location of the acquisition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused papers. 11. A perusal of Section 3A Notification indicates that insofar as CTS No.2961, an extent of 77.266 square metres is proposed to be acquired; in respect of CTS No.2989, an extent of 25.145 square metres is proposed to be acquired; in respect of CTS No.2990, an extent of 69.481 square metres is proposed to be acquired; in respect of CTS No.2991, an extent of 41.651 square metres is proposed to be acquired and in respect of CTS No.2995, an extent of 124.632 square metres is proposed to be acquired. 12. Sri.Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.10061/2024 and other connected matters dated 22.01.2025, to contend that it was required for the NHAI to have clearly and categorically provided the boundaries and the extent of the land proposed to be acquired and as such, he submits that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 same not having been provided, the notification under Section 3A as also the notification under Section 3D suffer from legal infirmities. The judgment in Shamrao's case was also delivered by this Court and was so delivered on the basis of the contentions raised in that matter that large extent of land was being acquired for establishment of a Greenfield Ring Road in Belgavi and that the landowners did not know if any portion of their land was being acquired in their land, since there were multiple owners of the land in such survey number, they also did not know the extent of land proposed to be acquired as regards each of the land owners and the location thereof. 13. The present matter is not a Greenfield Project but is an elevated corridor being built on the existing road as per 3A notification, the extent which are proposed to be acquired are the petitioners’ property range from 25 square metres to 124 square metres. This - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 being on edge of the existing road where the elevated corridor is proposed to be built. In my considered opinion the decision in Shamrao's case would not be applicable to the present matter since, there is no dispute as regards the land proposed to be acquired belonging to one single land owner that is the petitioners, the extent is also not in dispute, therefore there in confusion as regards the ownership and or extend of land proposed to be acquired. The extent having been indicated and extent being very small in my considered opinion it would not be capable of exact boundaries and the width and length to be provided. The approximate extent of land required as indicated in the notification in my considered opinion would be sufficient. 14. However, there is some substance in the submission made by Shri Sridhar Prabhu inasmuch as the area proposed to be acquired needs to be identified. This grievance can be redressed by directing the SLAO to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 clearly mark out the extent of land in the land of the petitioners which are proposed to be acquired so as to enable the petitioners to submit further objections if any as regards any special circumstances relating to that portion of the land. 15. Insofar as the contention that the NHAI has carried out construction to an extent of 43.55% taken on record by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 21.9.2023 in W.P.No.4352/2022 is concerned, though the submission of Sri Sridhar Prabhu at first blush appeared to be attractive to point out defaults committed by the authorities. In view of the submission now made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the project is for establishment of elevated corridor and it is only portions of the land which are proposed to be acquired juxtaposed with the notification themselves which would indicate that it is only small extents of land which are proposed to be acquired on the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 periphery of the existing road, in fact, the total extent proposed to be acquired under the 3A notification is provided in hectares is 1.10955.05 hectares and under the 3D notification has been provided to be 1.024315 hectares. The elevated corridors being proposed to be established over several kilometers, the proposed extent of acquisition being just about 1 hectare makes the entire extent of acquisition to pale into insignificance taking the entire road which is being put up. 16. Thus the prejudicial argument which was sought to be addressed stating that the NHAI has carried out works even before the 3D notification and therefore NHAI has violated all provisions of law and commenced work before acquisition is rendered completely baseless inasmuch as even if work is done on the existing road for putting up of columns and girders, the same would be well within 44% as indicated. Therefore, I do not at this stage find any - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 kind of misleading submission made by the respondent authorities but contra prejudicial arguments are sought to be advanced by the petitioner which cannot be countenanced. 17. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which have been made out to interfere in the matter and grant reliefs which have been sought for. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER 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 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3827 WP No. 100328 of 2025 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. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120