- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 103100 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MANU VISHWA INDRAKUMAR SOOD, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.21, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, NEAR SHANKAR MATH, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 086, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 601, TOWER-1, DECCAN HABITAT, PIPELINE ROAD, YESHWANTAHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022. 2. SMT. MEENA DEVI SOOD W/O LATE VISHWA INDRA KUMAR SOOD, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: NO.21, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT PO, BENGALURU-86. 3. SMT. VANDANA ARVIND W/O ARVIND ESHWARLAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: A5, G1 PRUDENTIAL PARADISE, KARASWADA, MAPUSA, GOA-403 507. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HAVERI-HUBBALLI SECTION, NH-4, DHARWAD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, DHARA MAHAL, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, U.B. HILL, DHARWAD-580 007. 2. SHRI. MOHAMMED HIMAYATULLA S/O MOHAMMED INAYATULLA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O: HOUSE NO.2261, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA-571 401. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.P. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Chetan T.Limikai., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.P.Mathapati., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The petitioners are the joint owners of Sy. No.78 total measuring 1151 sq. mt. It is stated that an extent of 658 sq.mtr., of land in Sy. No.78 is standing in the names of the petitioners. The land is situated at Gabbur village, Hubballi taluk, Dharwad district. The said land was acquired by the first respondent for construction/ upgrading the Haveri-Hubballi - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 section of National Highway No.4 (New No.48) to six laning. It is stated that on 06.12.2013, the second respondent entered into an agreement for sale with petitioner No.2 to purchase the property for a total consideration amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and out of Rs.12,00,000/-, he has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money to the petitioners and six-month time was framed for execution of the absolute sale deed. As the matter stood thus, on 06.08.2021, a Gazette Notification was published for the acquisition of land for the construction of six laning of the Haveri – Hubballi Section from km.340.000 to 403.400 of NH-4 and accordingly the petitioners land was acquired by the first respondent Authority. After the acquisition of the land, the first respondent – Authority passed an award on 06.05.2022. On 28.02.2023, the first petitioner made a representation to the first respondent -Authority to release the compensation amount in his favor. On 05.06.2023, the second respondent filed his objections and requested the authority not to release the compensation amount to the petitioners on the ground that, he had agreed to purchase the subject land. The first respondent after considering the objections issued an endorsement on 09.10.2023 declined to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 pay compensation to the petitioners and directed the parties to approach a competent Civil Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his argument strenuously urged that the agreement for sale was entered in the year 2013. However, the absolute sale deed is not executed as of today. He argued by stating that there is no link between the petitioners and the second respondent. Counsel vehemently contended that the award is passed in the name of the present petitioners hence, there is no impediment for the first respondent to release the compensation amount in favor of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that the impugned endorsement may be quashed and direct the first respondent to release the compensation amount in favor of the petitioners. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 5. Sri.B.P.Mathapati, counsel for respondent No.1 submits that a detailed statement of objections is filed and the same may be taken note of. He argued by saying that the second respondent filed his objections contending that he had an agreement for sale in his favor; there is a title dispute hence, the reasons assigned in the endorsements are just and proper. Counsel, therefore, submits that hence, an appropriate order may be passed. 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls around a narrow compass and relates to the refusal of the compensation amount. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ property was acquired by the first respondent - Authority. It is also not in dispute that the award is passed in the name of the petitioners. Because of the objections of the second respondent, the first respondent - Authority refused to pay the compensation. The action on the part of the first respondent is untenable. It is significant to note that there is no lis between the petitioners and the second respondent. There is nothing on record to show that there is a title dispute. In my view, the first respondent has failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4345 WP No. 103100 of 2024 matters. As already noted above, the award is already passed in the petitioner's name hence, there is no impediment for the first respondent to take appropriate steps to do the needful in the matter for the release of the compensation amount in favor of the petitioners. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The endorsement dated 09.10.2023 issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-F is quashed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63