- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1831 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, HAVING OFFICE @NO.3-29, BETHEL, THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL, MANGALORE - 575 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY NH- 169 (13), HAVING OFFICE @ KSGEA BUILDING, BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALORE - 575 001. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BIDAN CHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RETD JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, S/O LATE VICTOR D CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, JUSCOT, 5TH MAIN ROAD, AGS COLONY, ANANDNAGAR, HEBBALA, BENGALURU - 560 024. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 2. CHRISTOPHER D' CUNHA, S/O LATE VICTOR D' CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1604, CENTURY, ETHOS, BELLARY ROAD, OPP. SAHAKAR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. 3. JOSEPH BENET D' CUNHA, S/O LATE VICTOR D' CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARY KNOLL, KAIKAMBA, KINNIKAMBLA POST, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 151. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANDESH J CHANTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. SANYA MALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED:04.11.2024 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.21541/2023 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the Order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.21541/2023. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners before the Writ Court questioned the Notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 19561. Under the said Notification, the lands of the petitioners bearing R.S.No.3/2 measuring 20 sq.mtr, R.S.No.3/4A1A measuring 121 sq.mtr., R.S.No.3/9A1 measuring 61 sq.mtr. and R.S.No.3/9A2 measuring 3 sq.mtr. of Mulur Village were notified for widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning, etc., maintenance, management and operation of Sunnur Bikarnakatte Section from existing Km 698.850 (Design 1 hereinafter referred to as 'the NH Act' - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 Km 691+350) to existing Km 744.190 (Design Km 736+362) of NH169 (Old NH13) under Bharathmala Pariyojana on Hybrid Annuity Mode in the District of Dakshina Kannada in the State of Karnataka. 4. In Mulur Village, 36 Survey numbers of varying existing lands were notified. In the initial Notification issued on 16.03.2016 published by the Central Government under Section 3A of the NH Act, the petitioners' lands were not notified. An enquiry as contemplated was conducted after issuing Notification under Section 3A of the NH Act and thereafter, declaration under Section 3D of the NH Act was published on 15.03.2017. In the Notification dated 15.03.2017 issued under Section 3D of the NH Act, out of originally notified 36 survey numbers, only 04 survey numbers were included. 5. After issuing Notification under Section 3D of the NH Act on 15.03.2017, a representation was given to the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.08.2017 by the NHAI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 about the proposed alignment of the Highway and the Deputy Commissioner accorded his in-principle approval to the alignment of the road on 06.12.2017. 6. Pursuant to the approval granted by the Deputy Commissioner, the NHAI also accorded its approval to the alignment of the proposed road on 19.08.2019. After the approval was granted by the NHAI, the Central Government proceeded to issue a Notification under Section 3A of the Act on 09.01.2020 proposing to acquire various extents of lands. However, in this Notification also, petitioners lands were not included, so also in the Declaration which followed under Section 3D of the NH Act dated 10.07.2020. 7. As the matter stood thus, on 28.04.2023 another Notification under Section 3A of the NH Act was issued in which 15 survey numbers of Mulur Village were sought to be acquired. In this Notification of 2023, the lands of the petitioners were included. Challenging the Notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, the petitioners - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 had filed the Writ Petition in which the impugned order has been rendered. 8. The Writ Court has painstakingly considered all the provisions and the manner in which the alignment of the road has been finalized and the fact that in three previous Notifications petitioners' lands were not included and were included only in the fourth Notification dated 28.04.2023, held that if the Central Government ordered to acquire the lands for widening of the National Highways secured in principle approval of the Deputy Commissioner and the NHAI had accepted the alignment as was proposed, the lands would be acquired only in terms of the approved alignment and not otherwise. 9. The Writ Court had also directed the NHAI to produce the original approved alignment plan and accordingly, the same was produced. The approved alignment in relation to the lands of the petitioners would disclose that R.S. No.3/2, R.S. No.3/4 A1A, R.S. No.3/9 A1 and R.S. No.3/9 A2 are outside the alignment. If the lands - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 were not the part of the approved alignment and they fell outside the approved alignment, there was no question of including those lands in the Notification issued under Section 3A. 10. Having noted the fact, the lands were not inside the approved alignment plan, the Writ Court quashed the impugned Notification. However, liberty has been granted to the NHAI to seek an appropriate modification of its alignment so as to include the lands of the petitioners, and thereafter, can issue a fresh Notification regarding the lands of the petitioners. 11. It is not in dispute that in the previous three Notifications, the petitioners' lands were not included and even in the approved alignment plan, the petitioners' lands were not included. In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order, when in the approved alignment, the petitioners' lands were not included, there is no question of including the petitioners' lands under Section 3A of the NH Act. It is very clear that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 only those lands can be acquired which form part of the approved alignment and not otherwise. 12. The learned counsel for the NHAI has vehemently submitted that the NHAI requires the land for construction of the drainage and part of the service road. We have shown the photograph which would suggest that the service road has already been formed without touching the petitioners' lands. 13. We have also shown some photographs which have been produced by memo dated 21.04.2026 before this Court by respondents to suggest that commercial and residential structures have come up on adjacent sites in close proximity to the drainage and the road, including near the respondents' property. 14. When the lands of the petitioners were not part of the approved alignment plan and in fact in three previous Notifications their lands were not included in the Notification issued under Section 3A and 3D of the NH Act, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21665-DB WA No. 1831 of 2024 the Writ Court has rightly held that the petitioners' lands cannot be included in the impugned notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act, however if the NHAI gets modified its alignment which would include petitioners' lands, a fresh Notification under Section 3A and 3D can be issued. 15. As a liberty is already reserved by the Writ Court under the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal in terms of the liberty reserved by the Writ Court in the Writ Petition. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6