- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K MAHABALA RAI S/O K DEVANNA RAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 6-57/1 "ASHRAYA" HOUSE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 2. SRI MONAPPA KUNDER S/O KORAGAPPA MADIWALA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS DOOR NO.16/57 NEAR JYOTHI MANDIRA MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 3. SMT. SASHIKALA D/O GANAPA MADIWALA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DOOR NO.16-56-1 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 4. ABEEDA SHEIKH W/O LATE SHEIKH HASSAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 5. MUMTAZ FAZULLA W/O DR. FAZAULLA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS MUKKA-575021 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 MANGALORE, D.K. 6. SMT. RASHEED MUBEEN W/O M M MUBEEN AGED 63 YEARS A1-BUSTAN COMPOUND NEAR JYOTHI MANDIR, MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 7. SRI. KESHAVA SHETTY S/O. CHANDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS DOOR NO.35/6/1 BEERANNA SHETTY HOUSE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 8. JAGADESHA SHETTY S/O. LEELA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BEERANNA SHETTY HOUSE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 9. SMT. VARIJA SHEDTHI W/O. MAHALINGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS DOOR NO.16/53 MUKKA BEERU HOUSE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 10. SRIDHARA SHETTY S/O. NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 11. SHOBHA SHETTY D/O. KRISHNA ALVA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MUKKA BEERU HOUSE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 12. HAMEEDA B W/O. MR. MOHAMMAD ALI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.16/39 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 13. MOHAMMAD ASLAM S/O. MOHAMMAD ALI AGD 48 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.16/39 MUKKA -575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 14. SRI. RAVIRAJ SUVARNA S/O. SHIVAPPA KUCKION AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SECRETARY SRI SATYA DHARMA DEVI TEMPLE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 15. SRI. RAMA SHETTY S/O. CHANDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.16/31/1 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 16. HOOVAYYA SHETTY S/O. CHANDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.16/31/1 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 17. SRI. K. S. HUSSAIN S/O. LATE SEEMU BEARY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.15/51 TAHIRA MANZIL KONKANBAIL-MUKKA-565021 MANGALORE, D.K. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 18. K. S. ABDUL KHADER S/O. LATE SEEMA BEARY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.15-52 TAHIRA MANZIL KONKANBAIL-MUKKA-565021 MANGALORE, D.K. 19. SRI. SADANNADA A V S/O. VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.16-54/1 OPP. CORPORATION BANK, MUKKA MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 20. SRI. AMBURAJ S/O. R. CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D.NO.16/49, NEAR CORPORATION BANK, MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 21. SRI. RAMACHANDRA M G S/O. LATE M. R. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DOOR NO. 16-44/1 LAKSHMI NARAYANA KRIPA BEHIND OLD POST OFFICE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 22. SMT. SAVITHRI G RAO W/O. LATE M.R. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-44/1 LAXMI NARAYANA KRIPA BEHIND OLD POST OFFICE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 23. PRASEEDA R BHAT D/O. LATE M. R. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-44/1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 LAXMI NARAYANA KRIPA BEHIND OLD POST OFFICE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 24. SMT. SHAMBHAVI G AITHAL W/O. P. GANESH AITHL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-1, PALANIR HOUSE, AMIN ROAD, MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 25. GIRIJA MANIYAN W/O. SUBRAHMANYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 26. SRI. GOVINDA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-41/1 SUVARNA SUNDARA MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 27. SRI. HARIKRISHNA M S/O. LATE L. VENKAT RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-44, KOUSTUBHA, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 28. SMT. SUDHAMALA S RAO W/O. SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DOOR N0.16/51, 1, 2, 3 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 29. M. SRINIVASA RAO S/O. SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16-48, 16-47 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 GURUKRIPA NILAYA MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 30. SRI. NAZEER AHMED S/O.SAHEB JAIN SAHEB @ SABJAN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 16-38, REHMAN COMPOUND MAIN ROAD MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 31. SRI. B.M. FAROOQ S/O. AHMED BHAVA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 32. SRI. KESHAVA KOTIAN S/O. RUKMAYYA ANCHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NEAR CORPORATION BANK MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. 33. SRI. A. VASUDEVA ADHIKARI S/O. A. SHIVANAND ADHIKARI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 16/44/2 MUKKA-575021 MANGALORE, D.K. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHEERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SURFACE TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI-110 001 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 DOOR NO.7-35/10(4) SRI MAHALINGESWARA TEMPLE ROAD PUMPWELL, KANKANADY MANGALORE-575002 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB DIVISION MANGALORE 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE D.K. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K. 6. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY URVA STORES, MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHOBHITH N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SMT. CHANDINI S., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 7; SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8TH SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE GAZETTE AND PUBLISHED IN UDYAVANI, KANNADA DAILY NEWS PAPER DATED 10.01.2013, AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 DATED 20.05.2013, PASSED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN NO.NH LAQ CR/54/13-14 SECTION 3(C) OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.2013, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, IN REFERENCE NO.NH LAQ CR/125/2013-14 PUBLISHED IN THE ENGLISH DAILY NEWS PAPER TIMES SPORT DATED 29.10.2013, UNDER SECTION 3(D) OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a notification dated 08.09.2012 issued by respondent No.1 and published in the Gazette, as well as in the newspaper dated 10.01.2013, and the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the competent authority in Case No.NH LAQ CR/54/13-14 under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1956' for short) and the notification bearing No.NH.LAQ.CR.125/13-14 dated 10.10.2013 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 3D(1) and (2) of the Act, 1956, 2. The petitioners contend that they are the residents of Mukka and are owners of properties situate in Mukka, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 Surathkal Village, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada district, which lie within the limits of City Corporation, Mangaluru. They contend that respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 08.09.2012 under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 proposing to acquire lands belonging to the petitioners and others. The petitioners submitted their objections on 30.01.2013 opposing the proposed acquisition of their lands. The petitioners contend that the competent authority without conducting a proper enquiry as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 passed an order dated 20.05.2013 rejecting their objections. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications and the order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the properties of the petitioners are being used either for residential and commercial purposes. He contends that during the widening of national highway No.66 in the years 1968-1972, portions of the petitioners' lands were acquired for widening the highway up to the Pavanje River between chainages 356 km to 358 km, near NITK Engineering - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 college, Surathkal. He contends that the width of the existing national highway is approximately 49 meters. He further contends that respondent No.2 proposes to form a four-lane highway between chainage 348/500 km and 358/000 km. He contends that even if a four-lane highway with a utility corridor is formed as per the norms prescribed by the respondent No.2, the land requirement would be only 30.06 meters. Likewise, even if a six-lane highway with a utility corridor and service roads on either side is provided, the land requirement would be only 44.6 meters. He submits that the properties of the petitioners are situate between chainages 356 km to 358 km and that the stretch of national highway sought to be widened extends from the State of Goa to the State of Kerala. He further submits that throughout the State of Goa, the width of the highway is maintained at 45 meters. (ii) He further contends that in the stretch between Kundapura and Koteshwar, covering chainages 283+000 to 288+000, the proposed width of the road is maintained at 45 meters. He submits that at various other places, the width of the road is fixed either at 45 meters or 60 meters, according to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 the whims and fancies of the authorities. He submits that in the stretch from B.C. road to Surathkal up to NITK and extending up to chainage 358, the right of way (R.O.W) of the highway is maintained at 45 meters. The properties of the petitioners are situated beyond NITK, where the road width is proposed to be maintained at 60 mtrs. Therefore, he contends that the authorities have adopted a selective and discriminatory method in identifying the properties for acquisition. He contends that the existing width of the road is more than 49 meters and is sufficient to meet the requirements of the respondent No.2. He therefore, prayed that the impugned notifications be quashed, as the same are arbitrary and unjustified. 4. (i) This writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who contends that the respondent No.1 had issued a notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 for the purpose of widening/four-laning national highway No.66 from km 348/500 to Km 358/000 (Bappanadu - Surathkal section in Dakashina Kannada district). It is contended that among the various lands notified for acquisition, the lands belonging to the petitioners are situate in different - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 survey numbers of Surathkal village. It is further contended that some of the petitioners had filed objections to the proposed acquisition and that the said objections were considered after affording them an opportunity of hearing and conducting a spot inspection. It is contended that during the spot inspection, it was found that the two-lane road on the eastern side was already formed in accordance with the approved alignment. It was also found that there was a need to provide a service road, as Surathkal is a hub of several educational institutions. Therefore, the objections filed by some of the petitioners were rejected. Thereafter, a notification under section 3D of the Act, 1956 was published. It is contended that the design of national highway No.66 cannot be altered for the sake of protecting the properties of the petitioners, as the same would impact the movement of vehicles on the National Highway. (ii) It is contended that as per the policy of the Government of India, a minimum width of 60 meters is essential for four-laning of the existing national highway, considering the present and future vehicular density. It is claimed that as per the letter dated 22.12.2003 issued by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, a decision was taken that henceforth the land acquisition for right of way would be a minimum of 60 meters for all projects under the National Highways Development Project (NHDP). It is contended that a 60 meter right of way is absolutely required for providing the main carriageway and public utilities such as service roads, parking spaces, drainage, electrical and telephone cables, water pipelines etc., The remaining 7.4 meters is required for future expansion, geometric improvements, to provide safe sight distance wherever necessary and for construction of bus bays and bus shelters. (iii) It is contended that the manual relied upon by the petitioners is only a guideline and that if the engineer considers it necessary, suitable modifications may be adopted. It is further contended that the project alignment, alignment plan and estimate were scrutinised and approved by the competent authority of NHAI. Therefore, it is contended that the contentions urged by the petitioners are without regard to the actual realities on the ground. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the road is already formed and therefore this writ petition has spent in itself. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. The only substantive contention raised by the petitioners is that the width of the existing national highway is 49 meters and that the same is sufficient for widening the road into a four-lane highway with a utility corridor. It appears from the documents produced by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with statement of objections that a minimum width of 60 meters is required for a national highway to provide the main carriageway and other utilities, apart from reserving land for future expansion. If the respondents have uniformly applied the said requirement and have acquired the properties accordingly, the petitioners cannot have any grievance, as all citizens are treated alike. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27242 WP No. 672 of 2014 8. The question whether the acquisition of land in excess of the present requirement for widening the national highway is justified cannot be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the respondents may be required to provide additional facilities over a period of time, for which land is required. Be that as it may, since the existing national highway is already widened into a four-lane highway along with the utility corridor, no purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending, as the same has become infructuous. 9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77