1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

W.A.NO.260/2012 (LA-RES) & 451-460/2013C/W W.A.NOS.330/2012 & 4732-51/2012,

331/2012 & 648-773/2013,336-363/2012, 844-901/2012,

902-954/2012 & 5197-5222/2012,955-1012/2012 & 1520-1544/2012,2455-2462/2012, 2464-2469/2012,

2470-2477/2012, 8581-8591/2012, (LA-RES)

IN W.A.NOS.260/2012 & 451-460/2013 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. MISS BERNADETTE FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSD/O LATE C J FERNANDESR/AT FLAT NO 2B

2. MRS. ESME SALDANAW/O LATE J V SALDHANAAGED ABOUT 78 YEARSR/AT FLAT NO 3C

3. MRS ARUNA B SHETTYW/O BHUJANGASHETTYAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSR/AT FLAT PART OF PENTHOUSE

R

2

4. LT. COL. ROCHE ANTONYS/O LATE MAJOR S PACKIASWAMYAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSR/AT FLAT NO 4B

5. MRS ROSY GOVEASW/O LATE W B GOVEASAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSR/AT FLAT NO 1A

6. MRS NOREEN VIOLET CYNTIAS FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSW/O LATE REMEDIUS FERNANDESR/AT FLAT NO 3D

7. MOHAMMED IFTHIKAR HASSANAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSS/O HASAN ISMAILR/AT FLAT NO 2C

8. MRS TINA MARIA DSOUZAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSD/O LATE SUNIL J DSOUZAR/AT FLAT NO 1B

9. MISS LIZZIE MARY THEOPHILLA PEREIRAAGED ABOUT 77 YEARSD/O LATE SYLVESTER PERIERAR/AT FLAT NO 1B

10. P R NARAYANASWAMYAGED ABOUT 74 YEARSS/O LATE P R RAMA IYERR/AT FLAT NO 1C

11. ASHOK FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSS/O LATE P J FERNANDESREPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEYMISS BERNADETTE FERNANDES

3

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARSD/O LATE C.J. FERNANDESR/AT FLAT NO 2BALL APPELLANTS ARE R/ATHIGH POINT APARTMENTNANTHOOR CROSSMANGALORE 575 005 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.,)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIAREP BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI 110 001

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAROSE VILLA, BISHOPS COMPOUNDBEHIND STATE BANK MYSOREVALENCIA, KANKANADYMANGALORE 575 002

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICERNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITYOFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERMANGALORE, D.K-570005

4. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, MANGALORE SUB DIVISIONMANGALORE-570005

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERD.K, MANGALORE-570005

6. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYURVA STORES, MANGALOREBY ITS COMMISSIONER-570005

4

7. STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS, M S BUILDINGBANGALORE 1 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1 AND R2, 3 AND 4SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R5 & R7)

THESE W.As ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.41809-819/2010 (LA-RES) DATED

17/10/2011.

IN W.A.NOS. 330/2012 & 4732-51/2012(LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR SHETTYAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSS/O CHANDRAHASA SHETTYR/AT MENEZES COMPOUNDBEHIND SUB-JAIL, KODIALBAILMANGALORE 575003, DK

2. SRI RAMACHANDRA ATTAVARAAGED 73 YEARSS/O SANKAPPAR/AT BLOCK NO.1, 15-13-779/1COCONUT GARDEN, MAROLIMANGALORE

3. SRI PURUSHOTHAMA SUVARNAAGED 58 YEARSS/O KITTA POOJARYDURGA, MAROLI, PADEMANEPUMPWELL, KANKANDADYMANGALORE .

5

4. MALLIKA R ALVAAGED 54 YEARSD/O JAGANNATH SHETTYR/AT NO.10/39, UJJODYKANKANADY, MANGALORE

5. SRI A BABUAGED 81 YEARSS/O ITHAPPAR/AT NO.3-51/1,MANGALORE - 2

6. SMT LILLY ALVAW/O BENADICTA ALVAAGED 67 YEARSR/AT BENLIL GROVEHEROOR VILLAGE, BANTAKKAL POSTUDUPI DISTRICTREP BY HER GPA HOLDER,MR J PRAVEENCHANDRA RAIS/O LATE LOKAYYA RAIAGED 43 YEARSR/AT SHANTHA HOUSEJEPPINAMOGARUMANGALORE 575 009

7. SRI ANIL RAOAGED 42 YEARSS/O B M SUBRAMANYA RAOC/O M/S VISHARAM MOTORS (P) LTD.,GORIGUDDE, MANGALORE

8. SRI SADASHIVA SUVARNAAGED 54 YEARSD/O KITTA POOJARYOPP KARNATAKA BANK, PUMP WELLKANKANADYMANGALORE

9. MR URBAN JOSEPH FURTADO

6

AGED 41 YEARSS/O LATE NIKOLAS FURTADOPRINCE HOUSE, BOBBUKATTEPERMANNUR POSTMANGALORE

10. RESOWALD SOANSAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSS/O LATE WINFRED SOLOMAN SOANSRIHOS DOOR NO.15/15/890/2KADRI MISSION COMPOUNDCOCONUT GARDENMANGALORE - 2, DK

11. SRI VALERIAN MENDONZAAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSDIRECTOR, SANDEESHAFOUNDATION FOR CULTUREAND EDUCATION ®PREMNAGAR, BAJJODIMANGALORE-575 005

12. SR. VIRGINICEAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSFOR MOTHER SUPERIORLITTLE SISTERS OF THE POORMANGALORE

13. SRI ABDUL SALIMAGED 66 YEARSS/O HUSSAIN SAHEBIII B HIGH POINT BUILDINGNANTHOOR CROSS, NANTHOORMANGALORE 575 002

14. MR HAJI P C HASHIRAGED 39 YEARSTRUSTEE: ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTREPUMPWELL, MANGALORE.

7

15. MR PRAVEEN FERNANDESAGED 34 YEARSS/O JOSEPH FERNANDESSWAGATH AUTO WORKSCOCONUT GARDENMANGALORE 575 002

16. MRS JACINTHA PAISAGED 56 YEARSW/O J R PAISNEAR: PUMPWELL CIRCLEMANGALORE 575 002

17. MR A M JACOBAGED 59 YEARSFATHER: MANGALORE PRAYERFELLOWSHIP EVG, THARETHOTA MANGALORE 575 002

18. MR G ABBASAGED 52 YEARS, M/S ABBAS & CO.,OPP: KARNATAKA BANK, PUMPWELLMANGALORE 575 002 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.,)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI 110 001

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAROS VILLE, BISHOP S COMPOUNDBEHIND: STATE BANK OF MYSOREVALENCIA, KANKANADYMANGALORE

8

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITYAND ASST COMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORIY OF INDIA (NHAI)OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERMANGALORE, DK

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERDK, MANGALORE

5. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYURVA STOREMANGALORE

6. STATE OF KARNATAKAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIM S BUILDINGBANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1, R2 & R3 &SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCHP FOR R4 & R6)

THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.9110/2011 AND NO.9493-9512/2011

DATED 17/10/2011.

IN W.A.NOS.331/2012 & 648-773/2013 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. MR U M ABDUL KHADERAGED 53 YEARSS/O LATE U A MOIDEEN KUNHIR/AT SIRAJ MANZIL, TALAPADY POSTMANGALORE, DK

9

2. SRI U GANGADHARAAGED ABOUT 52 YEARSS/O LATE CHANDAPPA UR/AT THOKKOTTU, ULLALAMANGALORE , DK

3. MRS JYOTHI D SOUZAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSW/O RONOLD D SOUZAREJOICE HOUSE, MONEPU,PERMANNUR-575 017MANGALORE, DK

4. MRS KHAIRUNNISSA USMANAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSW/O B USMANFAIZAL MANZIL, OPP: HIGHLAND COMPLEXPERMANNUR 575 017MANGALORE, DK

5. MR MATHYIS KUNTINHOAGED 48 YEARSS/O JUHAM CUTINHAKALLAPPU, PERMANENNUR

6. MR U K ABBASAGED 65 YEARSFATHIMA MANZILP O PERMANNURMANGALORE 575 017

7. SMT AYISHAAGED 61 YEARSW/O LATE ALIYABBASAGAR COMPLEX, NEAR THOKKOTTUCHECKPOST,PERMANNURMANGALORE

8. MRS FATHIMA

10

AGED 43 YEARSW/O MOHAMMAD RAZROSE VILLA, THOKOTTUPERMANNURMANGALORE, DK

9. MRS SHANAZAGED 38 YEARSW/O M ABDUL HAMEEDR/AT NO.307, 3RD FLOORS A S APARTMENT, KANKANADY MARKETMANGALORE DK

10. MR MARCEL D SOUZAAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSS/O BENZAMINE D SOUZASOUZA VILLA, MONEPUPERMANNURMANGALORE, DK

11. MR P C HASHIRAGED 38 YEARSS/O P C M KUNHIOUTDOOR SOLUTIONSKALLAPU, PERMANNURMANGALORE, DK

12. MR ELIAS LOBOAGED 63 YEARSS/O MOURICE LOBOLOBO VILLA, KALLAPPUPERMANNUR, MANGALORE DK

13. MRS LALITHA SUNDERAGED 56 YEARSW/O K SUNDERASHIRWAD BUILDINGPERMANNUR, THOKOTTUMANGALORE, DK

11

14. MRS MEERA SANTOSHAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSW/O SANTOSHASHIRWAD BUILDINGPERMANNUR, THOKOTTUMANGALORE, DK

15. MR FRANCIS D SOUZAAGED 64 YEARSS/O BENJAMIN D SOUZAPREMA VILLA, MONEPUP O PERMANNURMANGALORE, DK

16. MRS REKHA S SHETTYAGED 40 YEARSD/O LATE S RAJANNA SHETTYMADYARA HOUSE, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE, DK

17. MR U K IBRAHIMAGED 46 YEARSISRATH COMPLEX, THOKKOTTUPERMANNUR VILLAGEMANGALORE, DK

18. MRS KALYANIAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSW/O LATE CHANDAPPA POOJARYCHANDAPPA COMPOUNDKOLYA, KOTEKARMANGALORE, DK

19. SRI M SHEKAR SHETTYAGED 58 YEARSS/O M THAMAPPA SHETTYDURGA NILAYA, KOTEKARMANGALORE DK

12

20. SMT PARAMESHWARIAGED 52 YEARSD/O CHAKARA, GANDHINAGARULLAL, MANGALORE DK

21. MR YOGEESH US/O CHAKARA, GANDHINAGARULLAL, MANGALORE, DK

22. MR PADMANABHA, AGED 52 YEARSS/O AITHAPPA POOJARYTHRUPATHI AUTO ELECTRICALSDURGA COMPLEX, OPP NEW BUS STANDTHOKKOTTU, MANGALORE, DK

23. SRI B SHEKARAAGED 40 YEARSS/O MUNDAPPASHAKTHI NILAYA, BHAT NAGARULLALA, THOKKOTTUMANGALORE DK

24. VALERIAN D SOUZAAGED 65 YEARSS/O ANTONY D SOUZABHAT NAGAR, ULLALATHOKOTTU, MANGALORE, DK

25. MRS SHASHIKALAAGED 56 YEARS, S/O CHANNAPPA UKIRAN NIVASA, GANDHINAGARULLAL, MANGALORE, DK

26. SRI SUNIL S/O VISHWANATHA SALIANAGED 39 YEARSANITHA NILAYA, NEAR OVER BRIDGEULLALA, THOKKOTTUMANGALORE, DK

13

27. MR URBAN JOSEPH FURTADOAGED 41 YEARSS/O LATE NICHOLAS FURTADOPRINCE HOUSE, BABBUKATTEPERMANNUR, MANGALORE, DK

28. MR U SEETHARAMAGED 70 YEARSS/O DHOOMA SAPALYADOOR NO.24/97, HARIPRASANNA COMPOUNDBHAT NAGAR, THOKKOTTU, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

29. MR U CHANDRASHEKARAAGED 35 YEARSS/O U SUBBAYYA SAPALYAKAPIKAD, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

30. SMT GULABIAGED 52 YEARSW/O LATE SUDHA SUMARAGANDHINAGAR, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

31. MR MOHAMMED RAFIQ M HAGED 31 YEARSS/O A H MOHAMMADDOWRUSALAM, P O KOTEKARMANGALORE, DK

32. SMT PREMAAGED 58 YEARSW/O JAYAJAYA BUILDING, KAPIKKADULLALA, MANGALORE, DK

33. MISS HEMA U

14

AGED 38 YEARSD/O LATE DHARMAPALA KOTIANDURGAPRASAD COMPOUNDULLALA, MANGALORE, DK

34. SRI U SHESHAPPAAGED 61 YEARSS/O ANANDA MASTER USEETHANANDA NILAYA, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

35. MRS SUJATHA ULLALAGED 39 YEARSD/O LATE CHANDRAPPA ULLALSWATHI, BABUKATTEPERMANNUR, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

36. SMT NALINI ULLALAGED 43 YEARSD/O LATE CHANDAPPASRIRAKSHA, JYOTHINAGARAMOODABIDREMANGALORE,DK

37. SMT ROHINI ULLALD/O LATE CHANDAPPA ULLALSWATHI, BABBUKATTEPERMANNUR, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

38. MR DINAKARA ULLALAGED 54 YEARSS/O LATE CHANDAPPA ULLALR/AT PADDALE HOUSEPERMANNUR, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

39. SRI NAGESH SHETTY

15

AGED 46 YEARSS/O LATE MAINDA SHETTYNEAR BHAT NAGAR BRIDGETHOKKOTTU, MANGALORE, DK

40. MRS EMILA D SOUZAAGED 86 YEARSW/O LATE P M D’SOUZAKAPIKAD, MANGALORE, DK

41. MR GANGADHAR GATTIAGED 46 YEARSS/O BABU GATTIKAPIKAD, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

42. SRI VISHWANATHA KAPIKADAGED 62 YEARSS/O SANKAPPA, SUDESHA NILAYATHOKOTTU, ULLALAMANGALORE, DK

43. SMT T GEETHA R SHETTYAGED 44 YEARSD/O DUGGAMMA SHETTYESHWARA KAPIKAD, 3RD CROSS ROADULLALA, MANGALORE, DK

44. MR KOOSAPPA GATTIAGED 55 YEARSS/O KANAPPA GATTIKAPPIKAD, 2ND CROSS ROADULLALA, MANGALORE

45. MR SUNDARA ULLALAGED 45 YEARS, S/O CHAWKARADOOR NO.23/137GANDHINAGAR, ULLALMANGALORE

16

46. MR ISHWARA ULLALS/O.RAMAPPA POOJARYRAMAPPA NILAYAKAPPIKADULLAL, MANGALORE

47. SRI GANGADHAR ACHARYAAGED 50 YEARSS/O.LATE K KRISHNAPPAPOLYA KOTEKARMANGALORE

48. MR M LAKSHMANA GATTIAGED 62 YEARSS/O.KANTHAPPA GATTID NO.24/100/2, ULLALAMANGALORE

49. SRI SRINIVASA POOVANKODIAGED 52 YEARSAISHWARYA, KAPIKAD, ULLALMANGALORE

50. MR S GANGADHARAAGED 63 YEARSS/O.U MUDARA, GANDHINAGARKAPIKAD, ULLALL, MANGALORE

51. MR HILARI VEGUSAGED 72 YEARS, S/O.ADAM VEIGASD NO.23/66, KAPIKADULLAL, MANGALORE

52. SRI P V RAGHUNATHANAGED 49 YEARSS/O.LATE P V NARAYANANPVN COMPOUND, KAPIKADULLAL, MANGALORE

17

53. SRI GOPAL ACHARYAAGED 59 YEARSS/O.LATE NARAYANA ACHARYASRINIDI NIVAS, THOKOTTUKAPIKAD, ULLAL, MANGALORE

54. MR SIRAJUDDINAGED 60 YEARSS/O.LATE ABDUL KHADEROPP PRIVASY BUND LOW POSTKOTEKAR, SOMESHWARAMANGALORE

55. SRI LINGAPPA POOJARYAGED 48 YEARSS/O.SANKAPPA POOJARYSHARADAKATTE, KOLYAKOTEKAR, MANGALORE

56. SMT MARIAMMAAGED 67 YEARSW/O.LATE G M ISMAILD NO.7/141, UCHILAGUDDEPOST SOMESHWARAMANGALORE

57. MR MOOSAKUNHI M KAGED 58 YEARSS/O.U K KUNHI AHAMEDMALIGE COMPOUNDSOMESHWARA, UCHILAMANGALORE

58. MR ABDUL RAHIMANAGED 55 YEARSD NO.4/106, SHAMA PLAZAMAIN ROAD, SOMESHWARAMANGALORE

18

59. SMT K PRATHIBA HEGDEAGED 60 YEARSW/O.RAGHUVEERA HEGDEKOTEKAR, MANGALORE

60. SMT C NIRMALA KAMATHAGED 65 YEARSW/O.UPENDRA KAMATHKOLYA, KOTEKAR, MANGALORE

61. SRI NIRANJAN NAYAKAGED 38 YEARSS/O.KRISHNA NAYKBEEDHI, KOTEKARMANGALORE

62. SMT JULIANA D’SOUZAAGED 63 YEARSW/O.ADVERT LOBOLOBO COMPLEX, KOLYAKOTEKAR, MANGALORE

63. MR HASSAINARAGED 38 YEARSS/O.LATE M ALIABBAHAJI MANZIL HOUSEPERMANNUR, MANGALORE, D K

64. SRI K HASSAN SAHEBAGED 52 YEARSS/O.ABDUL RAZAKKOLYA HOUSE, KOTEKARMANGALORE, D K

65. SMT LAKSHMI GOPALA BELCHADAAGED 75 YEARSW/O.GOPALA BELCHADABHAGAVATHI NILAYABEEDI KOTEKAR, MANGALORE

19

66. SMT GIRIJA B UDYAVARAAGED 71 YEARSW/O.BASAPPASRIKRUPA, OPP MOOKAMBIKATEMPLE, KOLYA, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE

67. SRI HASSAN SAHEBAGED 60 YEARSTRUSTEE NURANI JUMMA MASJIKOLYA, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE

68. SRI NAGESHAGED 51 YEARSS/O.SOMAPPASOMESHWARAMANGALORE

69. MRS KHAMARUNNISA K SAIDUAGED 62 YEARSW/O.K SAIDU2/60 CHANDA MAHAL, KSS COMPOUNDKUMPALA BYPASS, KOTEKARMANGALORE

70. SRI SRI RAMANANDA SWAMIJI AGED 62 YEARS SRI KOLYA MUTT KOTEKAR POST MANGALORE.

71. SRI K GANGADHARA AGED 51 YEARS

NEAR ANSARI SAW MILLBHAGAVATHI COMPLEX, KOLYASOMESHWARA, MANGALORE

72. MR USUF

20

AGED 61 YEARSS/O.ABDUL RAHIMANUPPALA POST, KASARAGODKERALA STATE

73. SMT ALEEMA AGED 65 YEARS

W/O.LATE MOHIDDIN KUTTIAISHA MANZIL, SOMESHWAR POSTUCHILA, MANGALORE

74. SMT RADHAMMA AGED 68 YEARS

W/O.CHANIAPPASANKOLIGE, SOMESHWARAMANGALORE

75. SRI KARUNAKARA K AGED 72 YEARS

SAI NIVAS SANKOLIGE SOMESHWARA, MANGALORE

76. SRI RAMESH SUBBANNA KUMBLEAGED 60 YEARSS/O.BHANUMATHI R GUMBLESAI NIVAS SANKOLIGE

SOMESHWARA, MANGALORE

77. SRI U VASANTHA NAYAKAGED 73 YEARSS/O.NAGAPPA NAYAKNAGARATHNA KUMPALABYPASS, KOLYA, MANGALORE.

78. MR U NAVEEN AGED 46 YEARS

S/O.U SUNDARA BELCHADASHUBHA SADANA, SANKOLIGESOMESHWARA, MANGALORE.

21

79. MR HASAN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KOLYA HOUSE, 2/10B

KOTEKAR POST, MANGALORE

80. SRI DIWAKARA, AGED 43 YEARSS/O.MONTA POOJARYDURGAMBA BODY WORKS,KOLYA, KOTEKAR, MANGALORE

81. SMT B KAMALAAGED 74 YEARSW/O. P BALAKRISHNAHOUSE NO.3/101, BALA KAMALA VIHARAOPP KULAL MANDIR, KOLYA, KOTEKARMANGALORE

82. MR SHEIK MOHAMMAD SALIMAGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE K M YAKUBGREEN LAND, KOLYA, KOTEKARMANGALORE

83. MR K NAZIR AHMADAGED 54 YEARS, S/O.K HAMEEDKUMPALA, BYEPASSSOMESHWARA, MANGALORE

84. SRI RAMESH THIMMAPPA SAPALYAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSS/O.THIMMAPPA SAPALYAR/AT.GANESH COMPOUNDKANNUR KAMBLAKODYMANGALORE TALUK, DK

85. SRI K U PADMANABHA TANTRIAGED 67 YEARSS/O.PADMANAHA TANTRIR/AT D NO.7-8, SOMESHWARAMANGALORE

22

86. MR K SHEKAR GATTIAGED 64 YEARSS/O.LATE KUNJAPPA GATTIR/AT.KOLYA SOMESHWARAKOTEKAR POST, MANGALORE 575022

87. SUDHAKARA GATTIAGED 50 YEARSR/AT KOLYA, SOMESHWARAKOTEKAR POST, MANGALORE 575 022

88. SRI SACHIDANANDA NAYAKAGED 55 YEARSS/O.SANJEEVA NAYAKR/AT.KOLYA, SOMESHWARA KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE 575022

89. MR U M IBRAHIMAGED 54 YEARSS/O.HAJI M ALIABBAHASINA COTTAGE

NEAR KUMPLE BYL POSTKOTEKAR

90. MR K C ISMAILAGED 48 YEARS

S/O.K H HUSSAIN KUNHIR/AT.ADNAN PALACEKINYA POST, MANGALORE

91. MR ISMAIL UCHILAS/O MOHAMMADAGED 50 YEARSISAMIL COTTAGE, NEAR UCHILA BRIDGEPOST SOMESHWARA, UCHILAMANGALORE 575 023

92. MR C.A. MAJEED

23

AGED 50 YEARSSHAAN VIEW, NH 17SOMESHWARA UCHILMANGALORE 575 023

93. DR CHANDRASHEKARS/O VENKAPPA SAPALYAAGED 53 EYARSR/AT BHATRA HITHLUKOLYA, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE

94. MR UMMER FAROOQS/O MANCHILA ALIYABBAAGED 42 YEARSR/AT MANCHILA HOUSEPERMANNURU POST, ULLALAMANGALORE

95. SRI P GURURAJ RAOS/O P. ANANDA RAOAGED ABOUT 78 YEARSPONGAL HOUSE, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE

96. SRI U SADASHIVA GATTIS/O SHIVAPPA GATTIAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSR/AT SANKOLIGE MANESOMESHWARA, UCHILA POSTMANGALORE

97. PROF AMRUTH SOMESHWARAAGED 75 YEARSS/O CHIRIYANDAR/AT OLUME ADKA, KOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE 575 022

98. MR IMTHIYAZ AHAMAD

24

S/O MIR ABDUL KARIMAGED 45 YEARSR/AT MIR MANZIL, POST KOTEKKARMANGALORE 575 002

99. SRI ANANDA SHETTYS/O GUDDANNA SHETTYAGED 40 YEARSGENERAL MANAGER:SAMUDRA VIVIDHODDESHASAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA H OGANGA COMPLEX, THOKOTTUMANGALORE 575 017 D.K

100. SRI B JAGANNATH SHETTYAGED 55 YEARSS/O RAMAYYA SHETTYR/AT LAKSHMI NIVAS NH 17

NEAR VETERNARY HOSPITALKOTEKKAR, MANGALORE 575 022

101. SRI JAYARAM KORAKODUAGED 55 YEARSS/O RAMAYYA SHETTYR/AT LAKSHMI NIVAS NH 17

NEAR VETERNARY HOSPITALKOTEKKAR, MANGALORE 575 022

102. SRI HARISH KUMARAGED 50 YEARSHRISHIKESHA COMPLEXBEHIND CHECK POSTKOTEKKAR, BEERI, MANGALORE 575 022

103. SRI RAMACHANDRAS/O MUNDAPPAAGED 64 YEARSKRISHNAPRASAD, SOMESHWARAUCHILA POST, MANGALORE 575 023

25

104. SRI K GANESH RAOAGED 48 YEARSS/O K KESHAVA RAOR/AT KOTEKKAR POST, BEERIMANGALORE 575 022

105. MR A H MOHAMOODS/O ABDUL HAJIAGED 58 YEARSR/AT DARUSSALAM,KOTEKKAR POST, BERIMANGALORE 575 022

106. SMT SHEELAVATHI UCHILAGED 60 YEARS"SRIRAKSHA” POST KOTEKKARMANGALORE 575 022

107. SMT HEMALTHAW/O HARISHKUMARAGED 44 YEARSMANASA, NEAR TRAVELS BUNGALOWKOTTEKAR VILLAGE AND POSTMANGALORE 575 022

108. SMT SUREKHA K NAYAKW/O LATE KESHAVA NAYAKAGE 70 YEARSR/AT BEERI, KOTEKARMANGALORE 575 002

109. MRS ISAMMA W/O LATE U A MOIDU KUNHIAge:75AGED 75 YEARSR./AT SIRAJ MANZIL K C ROAD,TALAPADY VILLAGEMANGALORE 575 024

110. SRI PADMANABHA

26

S/O LATE L RAMA BELCHADAAGED 50 YEARSR/AT GUDDE MANE, TALAPADY POSTMANGALORE 575 024

111. MR CHAYABBAAGED 55 YEARSSECRETARY OF BILAL JUMMA MASJID (R)TALAPADY, MANGALORE 575 0234

112. MRS NAFEESA BANUW/O LATE U A MOIDIN KUNHIAGED 48 YEARSR/AT SIRAJ MANZIL, K C ROADTALAPADY VILLAGEMANGALORE 575 024

113. MR MOHAMMADS/O PAKI KUNHIAGED 52 YEARSC/O KHADER TALAPADYSIRAJ MANZIL, K C ROADTALAPADY VILLAGEMANGALORE 575 024

114. M R MOOSA KUNHIS/O U K KUNHI AHMEDAGED 52 YEARSR/AT S.M MANZIL, K C ROADTALAPDY, MANGALORE 575 024

115. MR MOIDEEN KUNHIS/O LATE A M MOHAMMEDAGED 45 YEARSR/AT KOMARANGALA HOUSEKOTEKAR POSTMANGALORE 575 024

116. SRI ANANDA DEVADIGA

27

S/O RAMANATHA DEVADIGAAGED 45 YEARSPATNA HOUSE, TALAPADY POSTMANGALORE 575 024

117. SRI HARIPRASAD SHETTYS/O ANANDARAMA SHETTYAGED 48 YEARSPRASAD NILAYA, TALAPADYMANGALORE 575 024

118. SMT NALINAKSHI MAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSSWAMY KRIPA, NAYANA NIVAS

119. SMT KUSUMAAGED ABOUT 40 EYARSBHAGAVATHI KRIPAPATNA HOUSE, TALAPDYMANGALORE 575 024

120. SRI SITHARAMA BANGERAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARSPATNA HOUSE, TALAPDYMANGALORE 575 024

121. SRI ABDUL AZIZAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSS/O LATE IBRAHIM BYARIC/O BASHEER S/O P REHAMANPILIKURU MANE TALAPDY VILLAGEMANGALORE 575 024

122. SRI SHARATH MAROLIAGED 52 YEARSS/O SADASHIVA MAROLI"ANUGRAHA” K C ROAD, TALAPADYMANGALORE 575 024

123. SRI J SADASHIVA MAROLI

28

AGED 48 YEARS S/O M BABUANUGRAHA, K C ROADTALAPADY

124. SRI JANARDHANA S/O BASAPPAAGED 78 YEARSADKA HOUSEKOTEKKAR POST AND VILLAGEMANGALORE 575 022

125. SMT JAYAMANI SHETTYAGED 48 YEARSPADMAVARTHI NILAYA, MADURUKOTEKKAR, MANGALORE 570 022

126. SRI RAMDAS RAIAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSR/AT D.NO 1-119, 8TH A MAINBTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560029

127. SRI JANARDHANA RAIAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

HOUSE NO.4, 7TH CROSSATHMANANDA COLONYSULTHANA PALYAR.T.NAGAR POSTBANGALORE 560032 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADV.,)

AND

1. UNION OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI 110 001

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

29

NATIONAL HIGHWYAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,ROS VILLE, BHISHOPS COMPOUNDBEHIND STATE BANK OF MYSOREVALENCIA KANKANADY,MANGALORE 575 002

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITYAND ASST COMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA(NHAI), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, MANGALORE, D.K

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERD.K, MANGALORE

5. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYURVA STORE MANGALORE

6. STATE OF KARNATAKAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORTAND HIGHWAYSDR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIM S BUIDLINGBANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2 & R3

SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R4 & R6)

THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.11377 TO 11507/2011 DATED

17/10/2011.

IN W.A.NOS.336-363/2012 (LA-RES)

30

BETWEEN

1. K MUKUNDA BHATAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSS/O LATE SUBBARAYA BHATKWOSTUBA NEAR BUS STANDTEKKATTE VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUKUDUPI DISTRICT-576231

2. K RAJARAM HEBBARS/O.K NARANAPPA HEBBARAGED ABOUT 71 YEARSCONSULTING ENGINEERHEBBAR COMPLEX, SHASTRI CIRCLEKUNDAPUR 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT

3. K IBRAHIM SAHEBS/O.K HAMMED SAHEBAGED ABOUT 71 YEARSPROPRIETOR PLEASANT FURNISHERSHEBBAR COMPLEX, SHASTRI CIRCLEKUNDAPUR 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT

4. PANDURANGA SHANBHOGUES/O.GOVINDA SHANBHOGUEAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSOPP DEVINE PARK, CHITRAPADI VILLAGESALIGRAMA TOWN 576 225UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

5. PADMAVATHI SHANBHOGUEW/O.SRINIVAS SHANBHOGUEAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSNO.3-39-C, 3-38, KARKADA VILLAGEPOST YEDABETTU, VIA SASTHANA 576 226UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

31

6. SRI DINAKAR SHENOYS/O.S BHAGAVANTHA SHANBHOGUEAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSSRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLER/AT SALIGRAMAPARAMPALLI VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

7. M SADANADA BHATS/O.LATE SHIVAIAH BHATAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSMOODHADU VILLAGEP O YEDABETTU 576 224UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICTR/AT.1555/G, IST CROSSHAL 3RD STAGEBANGALORE 560 008

8. SRI BALAKRISHNA SERVEGARS/O.H DUGGAPPA SERVEGARAGED ABOUT 76 YEARSSOWKOOR PALACE

9. SRI T RAGHVENDRA HATHWARS/O.RAMACHANDRA HATHWARAGED ABOUT 74 YEARSRETD BANK OFFICERMAHALAKSHMI NILAYA,N H 17

10. SRI RAMESH NAYAKS/O.LATE T PARAMESHWAR NAYAKAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSMAIN ROAD

11. SMT TULSIAMMAW/O.LATE SUNDAR NAYAKAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSNEAR CANARA BANK

32

12. SRI T RAJEEV SHETTYS/O.NARAYANA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSPATER HOUSE

13. SRI T RAMRAY SHANBHAGS/O.LATE GOPAL SHANBHAGAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSGENERAL MERCHANTNEAR BUS STAND

14. SRI MANJUNATH PRABHUS/O.KRISHAN PRABHUAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSPRABHU ICE CREAM

15. SRI T GOVINDARAYA NAYAKS/O.VASUDEVA NAYAKAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSGENERAL MERCHANT

16. SRI T SANTHOSH NAYAKS/O.PURSHOTTAM NAYAKAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSN H 17

17. SRI RAMACHANDRA GANIGAS/O.KRISHNA GANIGAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSMANASA ICE CREAM PARLOURN H 17

18. GURUCHARAN PADIYARS/O.T VASANTHA KUMAR PADIYARAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSSUDARSHANA PLANTAINSNEAR POST OFFICE, N H 17

APPELLANTS 8 TO 18 ARE

33

R/A TEKKATTE VILLAGEKUNDAPUR TALUKUDUPI DISTRICT 576 231 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY POSTMANGALORE 575 002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHADR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE 560 001

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERKUNDAPUR 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUDUPI DISTRICTUDUPI 576 101 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R V NAIK, ADV., FOR C/R1 & R3,

SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2 & R4)

THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

34

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.27610-27627/2010 AND WP.NO.28088

TO 28097/2010 DATED 17/10/2011.

IN W.A.NOS.844-901/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. LAKSHMINDRA BHATS/O LATE SADANANDA BHATAGED ABOUT 52 YEARSRAMANATHA KRIPA

2. SMT RANJANI SHETTYW/O K SHREEDAR SHETTYAGED ABOUT 57 YUEARSMATHRU NILAYA, KOTHWAL GUTHU

3. KAMAL C PUTHRANS/O C K THINGALAYAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSD/R VILAS

4. SANKI PUJARTHIW/O SAMPA POOJARIAGED ABOUT 75 YEARSSRIDEVI NIVAS

5. BALAKRISHNA SHETTYS/O NARAYANA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSSRI KRISHNA

6. PRATIBA B SHETTYW/O BALAKRISHNA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSSRI KRISHNA

7. PRAVEEN K

35

S/O LATE SRI K KARIYA POOJARIAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSSUNDAR SADAN

8. SMT BANAJA SHEDTHIW/O M MENAKA SHEDTHIAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSGURU EACHHE

9. DEVAKI B PATELW/O POOJARAM PATELAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSAMBIKA WOOD INDUSTRIES

10. SUDHAKAR G KUNDUS/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMA KUNDUAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSSRI KRISHNA

11. JAGGU SHERIGARS/O LINGAPPA SHERIGARAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSRAMPRASAD

12. SMT RADHU POOJARTHIW/O GUBA POOJARIAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSRAMPRASAD

13. RAGHU R SHETTYS/O LATE RAMA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSSRI RAM NIVAS, POLIPU KALYA

14. SMT VANAJA SHETTYD/O MUTTU SHETTYAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSSRI RAM NIVAS

15. SANJEEVA SHERIGAR

36

S/O LATE RUKKA SHERIGARAGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

16. JAGANNATHA SHETTYS/O LATE KALU SHETTYAGED ABOUT 78 YEARSSHANTHALA

17. RATHANA KUMARIW/O NARENDRA KUMARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSD/R VILAS

18. SMT SEETHA SHEDTHIW/O KRISHNANA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSDANDATHIRTHA

19. DEEJUC/O LATE NILAYA POOJARIS/O BABU POOJARIAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSNILAYA NIWAS

20. NEEBISHAD/O SHEIKABBA BARIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

APPELLANTS 1 TO 20 ARER/A ULIYARGOLI VILLAGEKAPU, UDUPI DISTRICT-574106

21. SUNIL S KAMATHS/O LATE SHESHGIRI N KAMATHAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSCANARA BANK BUILDING

22. K BABURAI KAMATH

37

S/O PURUSHOTHAM KAMATHAGED ABOUT 58 YEARSDAMODAR KRIPA

23. K SURYANARAYANA KAMATHS/O PURUSHOTHAMA KAMATHAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSDAMODAR KRIPA

APPELLANTS 21 TO 23 ARER/A MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI, UDUPI DISTRICT-574106

24. VISHWANATH M KOTIANS/O M KOTIANAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSYENAGUDDA VILLAGEKATAPADIUDUPI DISTRICT-574106

25. LAXMAN B PUTHRANS/O BAXTON MEDONAGED ABOUT 87 YEARSMULOOR KAPU HOBLIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

26. SAROJINI KOTIYAND/O GURUVA POOJARIAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSMULOORU PADU, UCHILU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

27. SRI BHASKAR MUTHA POOJARYS/O MUTHA POOJARYAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSMUTHA NIVAS, MULOOR VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

28. KRISHNA VENI SHEDTHI

38

W/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSMULOOR VILLAGE UCHILA POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

29. ISMAIL ABDUL REHMANS/O ABDUL REHEMANAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSMULOOR VILLAGE UCHILA POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

30. KATHEEJAW/O MOIDEEN MOHAMMEDAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSNEAR MASJID, SHIRVAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574116

31. MOHAMMED M IBRAHIMS/O IBRAHIM MOHAMMEDAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSFIELD VIEW, MULOOR, UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

32. SRI PRADEEP KUMARS/O PUTTAPPA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARSBITTUDA DHABA, OPP POLICE OUT POSTHEJAMADI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

33. MOHAN S SUVARNAS/O SUNDAR ANCHANAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSBITTU DABA, HEJAMADI POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

34. SMT NASEEMA BANUD/O ISAKI ANISHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARSKOPPALANGADI, KAPU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

39

35. SRI NOOR MOHAMMEDS/O MOHAMMEDAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSKOPPALANGADI, KAPU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

36. SMT AISAMMAW/O D K MOHAMMEDAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSMADURA HOUSE, KOPPALANGADI, KAPU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

37. ABDUL SALAMS/O SALAM, SECRETARYNOORULHUBA MADRASA COMMITTEEAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSKOPPALANGADI, KAPU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

38. SHEIK SABIR ALIS/O SHEIK HARUN SAHEBAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSALHAMRA, NEAR CANARA BANKTHENKA YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

39. ABDUL GAFARS/O SHEIK UMAR SAHEBAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSTHENKA YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

40. B FATHIMA BEGAMW/O LATE ABDUL KHADARAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSCANARA HOUSE, THENKA YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

41. HARISHCHANDRA SHETTY

40

S/O RAGHU SHETTYAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSRAVI NILAYA, NEAR MASJIDYERMAL THENKAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

42. K VISHWANATHA SHENOYS/O LATE K SARVOTHAM SHENOYAGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

43. S M NAUSHADS/O S M THAHIRAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSKAFF VILLA, NEAR K E B

44. SHEKAR SALIYANS/O NARAYAN SALIYANPRESIDENTKAPU BILLAVARA SAHAYAKA SANGHA®AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

45. ABDUL RAZAQ, S/O HASSAN SAHEBAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSKOPPALANGADI

46. SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGAUMW/O MUJAHID HASSANAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSKOPPALANGADI

47. DILAVAR HUSSAINS/O SARFUDDIN SAHEBAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSKOPPALANGADI

48. RAMDAS JOGIS/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH JOGIAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSNEAR HOSAMARI GUDI

41

49. K GOKULDAS SHENOYS/O V SHENOYAGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

APPELLANTS 42 TO 49 ARER/A PADU VILLAGE, KAPUUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

50. VARIJA S SHETTYD/O KANTHAPPA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSDUGGUSHETTY MANE, YERMAL BADAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

51. NAZEER AHAMED KHANS/O SHABBIN KHANAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSOPP. JAIN BASADI, YERMAL BADAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

52. RIJWANUBIW/O KASIM HASSANAGED ABOUT 75 YEARSOPP.YERMAL BASADIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

53. NAZEER ISMAILS/O LATE SHABUDDIN ISMAILAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSNEAR SUBASH ROAD, UCHILA BADAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

54. KHUTHIJABID/O LATE SHABUDDIN ISMAILAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSSHABNAM MANZIL, NEAR SUBASH ROADUCHILA BADA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

42

55. HAFEEZA ASGARID/O LATE SHABUDDIN ISMAILAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSSHABNAM MANZIL, NEAR SUBASH ROADUCHILA BADA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

56. ZAKIR HUSSAINS/O SHABUDDIN ISMAILAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSSUMMI VILLA, NEAR SUBASH ROADUCHILA BADA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

57. DUMANI R BHATS/O RAMACHANDRA BHATAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSBADDIMJA MUTT, UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

58. ABDUL GHANIS/O ABBAS SAHEBAGED ABOUT 75 YEARSMAIN ROAD, UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY-POSTMANGALORE-575002

43

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-560001

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERNATIONAL HIGHWAY-17,OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONERKUNDAPUR-576201UDUPI DISTRICT

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUDUPI DISTRICTUDUPI-576101 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHOBITH N SHETTY, ADV.

FOR M/S. S.N.S. LAW CHAMBERS FOR C/R1 & R3 &

SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2 AND R4)

THESE W.As ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.14888-14956/2011 DATED

16/01/2012.

IN W.A.NOS.902-954/2012 & 5197-5222/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. ASHOK RAJS/O Y S M HEGGDEAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, YERMAL BEDUYERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

44

2. DIWAKAR SHETTYS/O LATE NANDYAPPA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSNANDA DEEPA, OPP. SVS TEMPLEN.H.17, POSAR, MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3. RONALD LAWRANCE MARTISS/O VINCENT MARTIESAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSOPP. SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLEN.H.17, POSAR, MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

4. REENA MARTISD/O VINCENT MARTISAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSOPP. SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLEN.H.17, POSAR, MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

5. K ANURADHA KAMATHW/O K UMESH KAMATHAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSVISHALA, BEHIND SVK KALA BHAVANN.H.17, POSAR, MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. K UMESH KAMATHS/O LATE K PUNDALIKA KAMATHAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,VISHALA, BEHIND SVK KALA BHAVANN.H.17, MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

45

7. SESI POOJARTHIW/O LATE PIJJU POOJARIAGED ABOUT 80 YEARSDEVI PRASAD HOUSEMOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

8. JERALD MENEZISS/O WILLIAM MENEZESAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSN.H 17, OPP. SVS TEMPLEMOODABETTU VILLAGE, KATAPADIUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574 105

9. GEORGE D SILVAS/O LATE LEWIS D SILVAAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSHILTON COMPLEX, N.H 17YENAGUDDA VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

10. K PANDURANGA KINIS/O ANANTHA KINIAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSSANGHA MITRA, N H 17, POSARMODDABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

11. K NIRMALA BAIW/O K PANDURANGA KINIAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSSANGHA MITRA, N H 17, POSARMODDABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

46

12. USMAN SAHEBS/O LATE ABDUL SAHIBAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSMOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

13. K SATYENDRA PAIS/O K PUROSHOTAM PAIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSVIJAYA INDUSTRIES, NH 17MOODABETTU VILLAGE, KATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

14. SUDHA V HEGDEW/O VINOD HEGDEAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS(MODABETTU VILLAGE, NH 17, KATAPADI)H.B 22, HIS GRACE, HAT HILLMARTIN PIAS ROAD, MANGALORE-575 006

15. HABIBULLA SAHEBS/O FAKEER MOHAMMADAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSOPP. CANARA BANK, NH 17MOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105

16. VASUDEVA SHANBHAGS/O LATE MADHAVA SHANBHAGAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSDATTHARAMA SANKEERNAPANGALA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

17. VENKATARAMANA BHATS/O RAMAKRISHNA BHATAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSC/O RAMACHANDRA GENERAL STORESPANGALA-576 122UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

47

18. ABDUL HAMEEDS/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAINAGED ABOUT 44 YEARSSAFA MANZIL, NH 17, POSARMOODABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI-574 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

19. DR Y SHIVANANDA S SHETTYS/O S SHETTYAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSRATHI NIVAS, BEHIND CANARA BANKTHENKA YERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

20. Y G RASOOLS/O SHEIKH HAROON SAHEBAGED ABOUT 72 YEARSGULSHAN BHAG, NEAR CANARA BANKTHENKA VILLAGE, YERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

21. KHALEELULLA KHANS/O MOIDDIN KHANAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, NEAR CANARA BANKTENKA YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

22. NASIR ALI SHAIKHS/O SHEIKH HAROONAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSNEAR CANARA BANK, THENKA VILLAGEYERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

48

23. HARINI VITTAL SALIYANW/O VITTAL SALIYANAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, SRI KRISHNA VILASOPP. POST OFFICE, TENKA, YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

24. SHEELA K SHETTYW/O K K SHETTYAGED ABOUT 65 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, BADA VILLAGE, YERMALUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

25. GUNAPAL K SHETTYS/O KANTAPPA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, DOGU SHETTY MANENEAR JANARDHANA TEMPLE, YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

26. HERGA BABU POOJARYS/O LATE BOODA POOJARYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSBOODAGI SERVICE STATIONHPCL DEALER, BADA YERMALUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

27. HIRAJA S SHETTYS/O LATE SANKAPPA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, BADA YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

28. M KISHORE SHETTYS/O B B SHETTYAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, PAHCHAVATIBADA YERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

49

29. RAJENDRA CHOWTAS/O MAHABALA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, RAJAHAMSABADA YERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

30. SAROJINI SHEDTHID/O KRISHNI SHEDTHIAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, BABANNA HOUSEBADA VILLAGE, YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

31. SEFRABI D/O KHAIRUNISSAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, NEAR JAIN BASADIBADA YERMALUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

32. RIZWAN W/O SABU SAHEBAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, AANISHOPP. BASADI, YERMALUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

33. RATNAKARA B POOJARIS/O B POOJARIAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSSHOP KEEPER, VIGNESHWARA KRUPABADA YERMAL-574 119UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

34. SITARAM BHATS/O U GOVINDA BHATAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSSRI RAMA ENTERPRISESUCHILLA MAIN ROADUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

50

35. DR GOPINATH NAIRS/O C V NAIRAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSMAHALINGSHWARA TEMPLE ROADBADA UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

36. Y C S HEGDES/O MUDDU SHETTYAGED ABOUT 75 YEARSNEAR VIJAYA BANKUCHILLA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

37. HEMA D SHETTYW/O D M SHETTYAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSPANCHAMI COMPLEXNH-17, MULOORUUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

38. MEERA B HEGDEW/O BOJA HEGDE

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

39. SATHISH KUNDANTHAYAS/O RAMA KRISHNA KUNDANTHAYAAGED ABOUT 50 YEARSBADA UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

40. S ABDULLA HAMEEDS/O SHEKABBAAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSNEAR SRI NILAYAUCHILA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

51

41. ZAKARIA S/O ABDUL KADANAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSJUMMA MASJID ROAD, MULOORP.O UCHILA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

42. RAJAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA BHATAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSBUDHIJE MUTT, P.O UCHILA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

43. GEETA S BHATW/O SRIPATHI BHATAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSSUKANYA ASSOCIATES, NH 17UCHILA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

44. ABDUL LATIF S/O SHEK IBRAHIMAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSNIZAMA MINZIL, NH-17UCHILA-574 117UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

45. SUNANDA SHENOYW/O SADANANDA SHENOYAGED ABOUT 82 YEARSSHENOY NIVAS, P.O UCHILAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574 117

46. SONIA B SHETTYW/O BALAKRISHNA B SHETTYAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSHIGHWAY SERVICE STATIONULIYARAGOLI, KAUPU-574 106UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

52

47. NITYANANDA R SHETTYS/O RAGHURAM SHETTYAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,HOTEL MAYURA, NH-17, KAUPUDUPI-574 117

48. RATNAKAR RAJS/O S A K BALLALAGED ABOUT 75 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, PADUBUDRI BEEDUNADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

49. NIRUPAMA B SHETTYW/O K BALAKRISHNA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, SNATHRIPTHIBEEDINE KERE, NADSAL, PADUBIDRIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

50. SMT RATNAMMAW/O LATE JAGADPALINDRAAGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SHOP KEEPERPADMA BAKERY, NEAR BEEDUNADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

51. VASANTHI POOJARYW/O NARAYANA POOJARYAGED ABOUT 50 YEARSBEEDU TOOTANADSAL VILLAGE, PADUBIDRIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

52. VITTAL M SALIYANS/O LATE MAINDA POOJARYAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, VIHAR, NH-17HEJMADI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

53

53. H VASU POOJARIS/O LATE KANTAPPA POOJARYAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, SUVARSHINIGURUKULA COLONY, CHITRAPU, MOLKYDAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTAION UNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY POST, MANGALORE-575 002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHNA SOUDHADR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-560001

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERKUNDAPUR-576 201UDUPI DISTRICT

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUDUPI DISTRICTUDUPI-576 101 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHOBHITH N SHETTY, ADV., FOR C/R1 {FOR S.N.S LAWCHAMBERS} & R3,SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2 & R4)

54

THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.13929-14007/2011 DATED

16/01/2012.

IN W.A.NOS. 955-1012/2012 & 1520-1544/2012 (LA-

RES)

BETWEEN

1. SRI T SUKUMARS/O RATHNAKARAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSENGINEER IN CHIEF (RETD)FORMER SECRETARY PWD, RATNA VIHAR4TH CROSS, NGO COLONY AJJARAKADUUDUPI 576 101

2. VASUDEV ACHARYAS/O LATE KRISHNAIAH ACHARYAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSBHANDIMUTT POST HANAHALLIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3. ABDUL SALAMS/O ABDUL REHMANAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSMOTHER "PALACE N H 17VARAMBALLI VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 213

4. SMT IRENE MARY LEWISW/O LATE DR E J LEWISAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSMANAGING DIRECTORM/S. BRAHAMAVARA CHEMICALS PVT LTDBRAHMAVARAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

55

5. JAYANTH PAI B PS/O LATE SRINIVAS PAI B PAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSPAI PAN AND GENERAL STORESNH 17, BRAHMAVARA 576 213UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

6. SHEIK NAZIR SAHEBS/O LATE ABDUL KHADAR SHAHEBAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSVARAMBALLI VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

7. MANJUNATH B P BHATS/O PARAMESHWARAIAHAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSBRHAMAVARAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

8. ELIZABETH FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 48 YEARSS/O ALWYN FERNANDESSACRED HEART CONVENT, BRAHMAVARAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

9. U ANANDA SHERVEGARAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSS/O GANAPAYYA SHERVEGARHOSAMEN, HAREBETTUPO UPPOOR 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

10. SRI SATISHS/O SOMANTH NADU BETTUAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSP O UPPOOR 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

56

11. HARISH SHETTIGARS/O DUGGAPPA SHETTIGARAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSHARI AUTO ENGINEERING WORKSHOPKAPETTU, N H 17UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

12. K GOPAL GANIGAS/O K MANJAYYAAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSCANARA REFRIGERATION WORKSPARIVARA, SAMSKRIT COLLEGE ROADUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

13. SMT ASHA MAMAKAR HEGDEW/O MAMAKAR MUDDANNA HEGDEAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS5TH BUILDING KODGI SAI SADHANAKUNJI BETTU POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

14. RAVINDRA BEEDUS/O B GOVINDA RAOAGED ABOUT 53 YEARSAMBALAPADY POSTUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

15. SRI WILSON ANCHANS/O SANJEEVA ANCHANAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSNO 7-9-A AISHWARYABEHIND JETTHAN SERVICE STATIONN H 17, KADEKAR VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

16. SMT K SHANTHA BAIW/O B JAYANTHAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSNGO COLONY, AJJARAKADUUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

57

17. SMT K LEELAVATHIW/O K RAMAKRISHAN RAOAGED ABOUT 74 YEARSNGO COLONY AJJARAKADUUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

18. SMT FARAHATHW/O SALAHUDDINAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSNO 4-4-8A, KINNI MULKYUDUPIT ALUK AND DISTRICT

19. BHASKAR SHETTIGARS/O K GIRIYAPPAAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSKALYAN PURA HOUSENGO COLONY, KINNI MULKIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

20. K SUDHAKAR RAOS/O LATE K MOHAN RAOAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSNGO COLONY, KINNI MILKIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

21. SMT JYOTHI S RAOW/O K SUDHAKAR RAOAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSNGO COLONY KINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

22. K SADANANDA RAOS/O RAMA BAIAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSNGO COLONY, KINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

58

23. SRI DINAKAR RAOS/O LATE SEETHARAM RAOAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSD.NO 4-4-9, KINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

24. SATISH NS/O K NARAYANAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSCHAITRA NGO COLONYKINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

25. SMT VEENA RAOW/O K RAGURAM RAOAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSGOPIKA NH 17, KINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

26. BABURAY SHENOYS/O A RAGAVENDRA SHENOYAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSRAMNATH, KINNI MULKYNGO COLONYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

27. SMT SAUMINI ANCHANW/O WILSON ANCHANAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSD.NO. 7-9-A, KADEKARU VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

28. B SUDHAKAR RAOS/O LATE B SANJEEVAAGED ABOUT 56 YEARSNGO COLONY, KINNI MULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

59

29. SMT M LEELVATHIW/O LATE M ANANTHAKRISHNA RAOAGED ABOUT 63 YEARSD.NO 4-2-77, GANGA PRASADNGO COLONY CROSS, III CROSSUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

30. SMT M ROOPAD/O M S SWAMYAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSKADEKARU VILLAGESRI SUBRAMANYA SADANAD.NO. 4-2-81 A, NGO COLONYAJJARA KADU, UDUPI

31. SHYAM POOJARIS/O LATE KORGA POOJARIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSGURU KRUPA, THENBKABETTU POSTUPPOOR VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

32. WILFRED FERNANDESS/O PETER FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 59 YEARSDONUM DEI, N H 17NEAR LVT SCHOOLPO SANTHEKATTE, KALYANAPURAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

33. N VITTAL PRABHUS/O NAGAPPA PRABHUAGED ABOUT 60 YEARSPRABHU GENERAL STORESSANTHEKATTE 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

60

34. VENKATESH NAYAKS/O LATE LAKSHMANA NAYAKAGED ABOUT 70 YEARSNEAR ASHIRWAD TALKIESOPP ROBO SOFT TECHNOLOGIESPUTTUR VILLAGEPOST SANTHEKATTE - 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

35. P TULSIDAS NAYAKS/O LATE KRISHNARAYA NAYAKAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSSRI GANESH NEAR ASHIRWAD TALKIESPUTTUR VILLAGEPOST SANTHEKATTE 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

36. PRASAD RAJ KANCHANS/O B B KANCHANAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSKANCHAN AUTOMOBILES PVT LTDDIVYA PRASAD, KEMANNU, UDUPIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

37. SMT ASIYA PARVEENW/O AKBAR ALIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSTHASALLI, OPP ASHIRVAD THEATRESANTHEKATTE, KALYANPURAUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

38. OWIN LEWISS/O LATE PETER SIMON LEWISAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSSANTHEKATTE, PUTTUR VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

61

39. SMT ALPHONSE FERNANDESW/O RONALD FERNANDESAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSMARINA, OPP VIJAYA BANKSANTHEKATTE POST,UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

40. DAYANAND NAYAKS/O LAKSHMANA N NAYAKAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSNEAR ASHIRVAD TAKIESSANTHEKATTEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

41. JAGADISHA NAYAKS/O TULSIDAS NAYAKAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSKRISHNA LEELA, SANTHEKATTEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

42. SMT NANDINI S PALANW/O SHANKAR PALANAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSNANDA DEEPA, N H 17UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

43. ANANDA D PADOKONES/O LATE GOVINDA D PADOKONEAGED ABOUT 52 YEARSAPOLLO ENGINEERING WORKSNH 17, AMBALAPADIUDUPI 576 103

44. B ASHARAM SHETTYS/O LATE H S SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS(GPA HOLDER) FOR A SUNDAR SHETTYSANIDHI, CPC LAYOUTUDUPI 576 103

62

45. SHAKILA A SHETTYW/.O B ASHARAM SHETTYAGED ABOUT 44 YEARSSANIDHI, CPC LAYOUTUDUPI

46. U SHANKAR RAOS/O GOPAL RAOAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSNEAR AKSHAYA ICE PLANTGAJANANA COMPLEXAMBALAPADY, UDUPI

47. G MOHAMMEDS/O G HASSAN BEARYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSMUDANIDAMBURBEACH ROAD, GANGOLLIUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

48. ST FRANCIS XEVEIER CHURCH UDAYAVARAREP BY CHARLES NORONHAS/O VINCENT NORONHAAGED ABOUT 56 YEARS(PARISH PRIEST) UDYAVARAUDUPI

49. MOHAMMED SHOAIBS/O LATE ABDUL GANIAGED ABOUT 25 YEARSHOUSE NO 4-4-8AKINNIMULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

50. SMT SHAKUNTALA KW/O LATE K KRISHNAIAH HEREBETTUAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSUPPOOR VILLAGE 576 105UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

63

51. SRI JAMES D’SILVAS/O SIMON PETER DSILVA AAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSJOEL VILLA, BEHIND R C CHURCHN H 17, BALAIPADY JUNCTIONUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

52. JAMALUDHINS/O SHEIK IBRAHIM SAHEBAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSHANDADI VILLAGEBRAHAMAVARA UDUPI

53. SMT SAROSHCHANDRA SHETTYW/O LATE B RAJARAM SHETTYAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSNO 405, ARCHAN ARCADEKUNJIBETTU, UDUPI

54. SMT KALAVATHIW/O LAKSHMINARAYANAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSLAKSHMI SHARADA NILAYAKANNARPADY,KADEKARU VILLAGEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

55. A SRIDHAR SHETTYS/O KRISHNA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 68 YEARSABINANDAN KUKKIKATTEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

56. SMT RANJANA S SHETTYW/O SRIDHARA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 58 YEARSABINANDAN,KUKKIKATTEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

64

57. MOHAMMED ANSARS/O M ABUBAKARAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSV B ROAD, MALPEUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

58. SMT LYDIA IRENE DEMELLOW/O JEROME DEMELLOAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSN H 17, CAR CARE CENTREKINNIMULKYUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINSITRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT - MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY – POSTMANGALORE - 575002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE 560 001

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTIN OFFICERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17, OFFICE OF THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONERKUNDAPUR 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT

65

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUDUPI DISTRICTUDUPI 576 101 ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. SHOBHITH N SHETTY, ADV., FOR M/S S.N.S. LAWCHAMBERS FOR C/R1 & R3,SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2 & R4)

THESE W.As FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.4988-5070/2011(LA-RES) DATED

13/01/2012.

IN W.A.NOS. 2455-2462/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. SMT P MEERAAGED ABOUT 67 YEARSW/O. SANJEEVA K."HANUMANTHA NAGARA"PUTTUR VILLAGEUDUPI – 576 103

2. YADAVA SHETTIGARAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSS/O. ANANTHA SHETTIGARNEAR KUKKI KATTE JUNCTIONUDUPI – 576 103

3. K. PRABHAKAR NAYAKAGED ABOUT 61 YEARSS/O.K. SANJEEVA NAYAKNEAR JATHANNA SERVICE STATIONKINNIMULKYUDUPI – 576 101

66

4. G.S. JATHANNAAGED ABOUT 81 YEARSS/O LATE SHANTHAPPA JATHANNAJATHANNA AUTO SERVICE CENTREN.H.17, KINNIMULKYUDUPI – 576 101

5. K. DEVARAYA SHETTIGARAGED ABOUT 69 YEARSS/O.KORAGA SHETTIGARNEAR SWAGATHA GOPURAKINNIMULKY, UDUPI – 576 101

6. SMT. VASUDHA K. SHEREGARAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSD/O K.B. VENKATA KRISHANANEAR FIRE SERVICE STATIONUDUPI – 576 101REP BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEYHOLDER SRI. K.B. CHANDRA MOHANAGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY POSTMANGALORE – 575 002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE – 560 001

67

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY &ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17KUNDAPURA SUB- DIVISIONKUDNAPUR – 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1 AND R3 &SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE. HCGP FOR R2)

THESE W.As FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.34002-34009/2011 DATED

21/03/2012.

IN W.A.NOS. 2464-2469/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. SMT. SAVITHRI S PALANAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSW/O LATE DR U SANJEEVA PALANR/AT SANTHKATTEUDUPI 576 125

2. DR B MOHANDAS SHETTYAGED ABOUT 66 YEARSS/O VANAJAKSHI SHEDTHYPRASHANTI CLINIC, VARAMBALLI VILLAGEBRAHMAVARAUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

3. LESLIE ROBERT D COSTAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARSS/O LATE BAPTIST D COSTAHEREBETTU, UPPOOR VILLAGE 576 105UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT

68

4. SRI ALICE MENDONCAAGED ABOUT 71 YEARSW/O GREAORY MENDONCANO.4-4-5, NEAR SWAGATHA GOPURAKINNI MULKY, UDUPI

5. H NITHYANANDA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSS/O KALAPPA SHETTYPROPRIETOR RUCHIRA COMPLEXVARAMBALLI VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA POSTUDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY POST, MANGALORE 575 002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE 560 001

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISIONKUNDAPUR 576 201UDUPI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1, R3SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2)

69

THESE W.As. ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION 33635-640/11 DATED 21/3/12

IN W.A.NOS. 2470-2477/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. SRI MANOHAR SHETTYS/O SHIVA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSMANAGING PARTNERM/S SAI RADHA DEVELOPERSCHRIST JYOTHI COMPLEX3RD FLOOR, K M MARGUDUPI 576 101

2. SRI. G. SHANKARS/O SOMA BANGERAAGED 50 YEARS"SHAMILI", AMBALAPADIUDUPI - 576 103

3. SRI. RATNA KUMARS/O LATE S. KRISHNA SHIVATHAYAAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS "PRITHVI", SARALAYA COMPOUNDVALAK-ADU, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT 576 101

4. DR. K. SUKHANANDA SHENOYS/O K. ANANTH SHENOYAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS"SRI. GANESH", N.H. 17AMBALPADY, UDUPI. 576 103

70

5. GOWRI R KOTYANW/O RAJESH S. JATHANNAAGED 38 YEARS"NISARGA", JAJI HITLUN.H -17, UDYAVAR-574118UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI : M M SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYSAUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONUNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY POSTMANGALORE-575002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHADR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE.

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY &ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY 17KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISIONKUNDAPURUDUPI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1, R3

SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2)

71

THESE W.As. FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION 31318-325/11 DATED 21/3/12

IN W.A.NOS.8581-8591/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

1. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTYS/O LATE VASU SHETTYAGED ABOUT 57 YEARSR/A CHANDRA NIVAS, NADSAL VILLAGEPADUBIDRI, UDUPI-574111

2. SMT SHAMBAVI V SHETTYW/O CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTYAGED ABOUT 55 YEARSR/A CHANDRA NIVAS, NADSAL VILLAGEPADUBIDRI, UDUPI-574111

3. K VASANTHA KINIS/O K ANANTHA KINIAGED ABOUT 64 YEARSR/A ANANTHA NIVAS, MUDABETTU VILLAGEKATAPADI, UDUPI-574105

4. VEENA SHETTYW/O LATE SHEKARA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSR/A HEMA, MUDABEETU VILLAGEKATAPADI, UDUPI-574105

5. SHASHIKANTH R SHETTYS/O LATE RAMANNA SHETTYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSR/A CHOKKADI, YENAGUDDE VILLAGEKATAPADI, UDUPI-574105

72

6. JULIAN MARK D MELLOS/O MOURIS D MELLOAGED ABOUT 54 YEARSR/A SHANKARAPURA VILLAGEKATAPADI, UDUPI- 574115 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADV.,)AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF SHIPPINGROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYSREP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTORNATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIAPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-MANGALOREBISHOP COMPOUND, VALENCIAKANAKANADY-POST, MANGALORE-575002

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYVIDHANA SOUDHADR AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-560001

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ANDASSISTANT COMMISSIONERNATIONAL HIGHWAY-17KUDNAPURA SUB DIVISIONKUNDAPURA-576201UDUPI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR C/R1, R3SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R2)

THESE W.As. FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.42888/2011 AND WP.NO.14447-456/2012 DATED 24/02/2012.

73

THESE W.As. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THISDAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DILIP B. BHOSALE J. (JUDGMENT)

1. This bunch of writ appeals arises out of the

common judgment and order dated 17.10.11 rendered by

learned Single Judge in a group of writ petitions filed by

the appellants challenging preliminary as well as final

notifications issued under sections 3A(1) & 3D of the

National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the NH Act”). The

writ petitions along with the corresponding writ appeals,

arising from the common judgment dated 17.10.2011 are

W.A. No.260/12 & W.A.Nos.451-460/13 in W.P. NOs.41809-

819/2010; W.A.Nos.330/12 & 4732-51/12 in W.P.Nos.9110/11

& 9493-9512/11; W.A.Nos.331/12 & 648-773/13 in

W.P.Nos.11377-11458/11 & 11460-11491/11, 11493-11498/11,

11500, 11501, 11504-11507/12; W.A. Nos.336-363/12 in

W.P.Nos.27610-27627/10 & 28088-28097/10.

1.1 After disposing of the aforementioned group of

writ petitions, the remaining groups of writ petitions were

74

disposed of by different orders dated 16.1.12, 13.1.12,

21.3.12 and 24.5.2012, following the common judgment

and order dated 17.10.2011. As common questions of law

are involved in all the appeals and the background facts

are identical, these appeals were heard together and are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these appeals,

to appreciate the controversy and the rival stands thereon,

are as follows. The appellants are owners and in

possession of lands that are subject matter of the

acquisition (for short “the lands”) under the provisions of

the NH Act, situate at different villages in Dakshina

Kannada and Udupi Districts. The lands are abutted to

the existing National Highway No.17. About 3-4 decades

ago, the appellants claim that their lands were acquired for

building the existing NH – 17 of about 45 mts. width.

2.1 The Central Government in exercise of the

powers vested in it under section 3A (1) of the NH Act

75

issued notifications on different dates (i.e., 29.10.2009,

18.12.2009, 8.2.2010 & 26.2.2010), in respect of different

stretch of lands, involving the lands of the appellants, for

widening of the existing NH 17 to the extent of 60 mts.

from Kundapur – Suratkal (Km.283-300 to Km.358-080)

and from Nantoor – Talapady (Km.375.300 to 376.600 and

Km.3.700 to 17.200). The notifications under sections

3A(1) were published in daily newspapers. The

notifications contained names of the concerned villages,

survey numbers including its particular parcel number,

nature, type and area of land proposed to be acquired. In

the notification it was clearly mentioned that the land plans

and other details of the lands are available and can be

inspected at the office of the competent authority. It was

also mentioned that any person interested in the lands

may file objections before the competent authority within

21 days from the date of publication of the notification in

the Official Gazette. Simultaneously, as stated above the

76

substance of the notification was published in daily

newspapers.

3. We are not mentioning the relevant dates,

connecting each of the appeals, of the notifications under

section 3A and 3D; dates of their publication in official

gazettes; name of the news papers; and the dates of their

publication therein etc. since they are not in dispute or

have any bearing on the questions / points raised for our

consideration in these appeals.

4. In response to the notifications under section 3A,

a number of land owners / appellants filed objections.

Majority of the appellants, who filed objections, in their

objections, stated that after the acquisition his / her

remaining land will become useless and that he / she will

render landless or will lose their only source of livelihood.

The sum and substance of the objections raised by most of

77

the land owners / appellants, as mentioned in the writ

petitions is as follows:

a) The portion of NH-17 is a thickly populated areaconsisting of residential houses, commercialcomplex, educational institutions, ancient templesand mosques, shops/commercial premises of pettybusinessmen, etc.

b) The people who are residing/cultivators along theproposed highway are inclusive of backward classesand poor persons, who completely depend onagricultural operation for their livelihood and mostof the people including the petitioners are small landholders and petty farmers and that they wouldrender landless.

c) Most of the people in these areas have alreadysacrificed enough land about 3 decades ago for thepurpose of making the said NH-17 into double road.

d) Infact there is absolutely no developmental worksfor the last more than 35 years even after acquiringlands from the people of these areas.

e) The proposed width of the lane is excessive and in alesser area, 6 lane road can be formed. Infact, theNational Highway authorities have acquired landsfor the purpose of widening NH-17 road in the Stateof Kerala only to an extent of 45 Mts., to form 6lane National Highway. When this being the case,the respondent authorities are proposing to acquirethe land of 60 Mts., for the purpose ofwidening/forming National Highway No.17. As theproposed 60 Mts., width is far excessive than therequired 40-45 Mts., of land, the further acquisition

78

would give scope for unhealthy real-estateactivities.

4.1 None of the objectors/appellants made a

grievance that there was any deficiency or defect in the

description of land given in the notifications under Section

3A and, on that account, he/she was prevented from

effectively exercising his / her right to file objections.

Moreover, they did not, either in their in objections, or in

the writ petition, pleaded that the acquisition proceedings

are ultra vires the provisions of the NH Act and are vitiated

due to malafides and arbitrary exercise of power.

5. The appellants, in their petitions, have suggested

to form an alternative / separate express highway running

along the Konkan Railway line. Further, different

suggestions are made so as to save their lands, shops,

commercial complexes, residential buildings, temples, etc.

from the proposed acquisition. They also made

representations to different authorities, including Chief

79

Minister explaining the hardship that will be caused to the

appellants and similarly place persons due to acquisition

of the lands as proposed vide Notifications under section

3A of the NH Act. It was also contended that as per the

norms published in Indian Road Congress, the maximum

extent of land required for forming four lane road is 23.5

mts. and for six lane highway, 43.6 - 45 mts. with all

utilities including service road on both sides.

5. 1 The appellants also placed heavy reliance upon

the letter dated 18.5.10 written on behalf of the Chief

Minister of the State of Karnataka, addressed to the

respondents, in particular, the Chief General Manager (T),

NH Authority of India (for short “NHAI”), whereby the

decision and the desire of the Chief Minister was conveyed

by the Under Secretary, Public Works Port and Inland

Water Transport Department (Communication),

Government of Karnataka to confine width of the NH - 17

to 45 mts.

80

6. So far as hearing on the objections as

contemplated by section 3C of the NH Act is concerned,

some of the appellants contend that they were not given

an opportunity/proper opportunity of being heard and that

the order / decision of the competent authority, disallowing

their objections, was not furnished to them and on this

count also the final notifications under section 3D deserve

to be quashed and set aside, being arbitrary, illegal and

unconstitutional.

7. It is in this backdrop, the appellants challenged

the preliminary notifications issued under Section 3A(1)

and final Notifications under Section 3D of the NH Act.

8. Respondent No.1-Union of India, Minister of

Shipping, Road Transport and Highways represented by its

Project Director, NH Authority of India, Project

implementation Unit, Mangalore, filed statement of

objections in the writ petitions. It is the case of the

81

respondents that land plans and other details of the lands

proposed to be acquired were available in the office of the

competent authority for inspection and that the objections

filed by the land owners were considered and rejected by

the competent authority after giving them an opportunity

of personal hearing. In the statement of objections, it is

urged that width of NH 17 has been fixed at 60 mts. under

NH development program, which the State Government

has also accepted/consented for the proposed width

between Kundapur – Suratkal and Nantoor - Talapady

section. The width of 60 mts has been recommended in

view of the high volume of traffic between Mangalore and

Kundapur and beyond,and so also keeping in view the

future need. It is further contended that the prayer of the

appellants/petitioners to confine the width of NH 17 to 45

mts. is contrary to the policy of National Highway

Development.

82

9. The respondents state that they are statutory

authority known as National Highway Authority of India

(for short `NHAI), constituted under the Act No.68 of 1988

of Parliament, viz. National Highway Authority of India Act,

1988. The main object for which this authority is

constituted, as contended in the statement of objections, is

the development and maintenance of the national

highways entrusted to it. It is stated that, it is a

professionally managed statutory body having high degree

of expertise in the field of highway development and

maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements its plans

after thorough study by experts in the field and strictly

adheres to the professional standards of high order. The

proposed road widening according to the respondents, was

mainly influenced by the matter of utilization of existing

right of way and that localized shifting is not feasible, as

this would affect the stipulated design standards as per the

Indian Roads Congress code for the project. It is

contended that, the project in question has been designed

83

based on the detailed studies done by the Project Report

consultant, keeping in view the various relevant factors

including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and public

interest at large. Hence, the allegations made in the

petitions and the suggestions made therein for re-aligning

the national highway at certain spots / points so as to save

the lands of the appellants are baseless and unfounded

and uncalled for apart from the fact that they are

impracticable and against the decision taken by the

experts in the field. As per the approved alignment, a

portion of the petitioners’ property along with some other

properties is required for widening the road to the extent

of 60 mts. They have further stated that the land

acquisition is for public purpose viz. for forming of 4 / 6

laning (for widening of the existing NH 17 to the extent of

60 mts.) and hence writ petitions are liable to be

dismissed.

9.1 They also brought on record by way of statement

of objections that the stretch of road (NH – 17) from

84

Mangalore to Suratkal (i.e., KM 358.080 – KM 375.300)

has already been completed under the new Mangalore Port

connectivity Project. According to the respondents, NH17

is a lifeline of coastal India. Further, according to them,

the existing traffic and future traffic growth on NH-17

necessitates further expansion. The acquisition of land

and shifting of the people again and again being

cumbersome and tedious, they state, the Government of

India decided to acquire minimum 60 mts. of right of way

vide order dated 22.12.03 bearing order No.RW/NH-

24036/13/2003-PIC. They have further stated that the

project alignment, alignment plan and estimate has been

scrutinized and approved by the competent authority of

National Highway of India, New Delhi. They assert that

60 mts. width is absolutely required for four lane carriage

way as mentioned below:

“ (a) Main Carriage way (with paved shoulders)– 17.5m(b) Central Median – 4.5m(c) Earthen Shoulder (LHS and RHS) – 2.0m

85

(d) Service Roads – (LHS and RHS) (6.0 X 2sides) – 12.0m(e) Divider between main carriage way andService roads (Both sides) – 4.0m(f) Footpath with drain (2x2.3m) – 4.6m(g) Utility corridor (LHS and RHS) (2X4.0m) –8.0m(h)Remaining 7.4M is required for futureexpansion, Geometric improvement, in orderto provide safe sight distance, wherevernecessary for Bus bays, construction of busshelter and for distrod plantation as perHon’ble High Court directions.”

10. Insofar as the grievance made by the

appellants in the writ petitions that no opportunity of being

heard was given to the appellants or the persons

interested, the respondents in their statement of

objections have clearly stated that the objections raised by

the appellants and all other interested persons were not

only considered but they were given opportunity of being

heard before issuing the Notification under Section 3D of

the Act. They specifically stated that the final Notification

was issued after hearing / considering and taking note of

the objections raised by each of the objectors, either in

86

person or through Advocates. Their objections were

rejected keeping in view the requirements “for” the next

30 years.

11. The learned single Judge dismissed all the writ

petitions by common order dated 17.10.2011 and the

orders following the common order in subsequent

petitions. He held that objections filed by the petitioners

were rejected by the competent authority after giving

them opportunity of hearing and the mere fact that they

are likely to suffer from hardship due to acquisition of their

lands cannot be a ground for setting aside the notifications

under section 3D of the NH Act. The learned Judge after

referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court, in

short, held that this Court cannot sit over the Judgments

of the authorities entrusted with the task of planning and

executing the project relating to widening of the NH- 17.

The learned Judge further held that the High Court in

exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

87

Constitution of India is not at all equipped to decide upon

the viability and feasibility of any particular project and

whether such project sub-serve the larger public interest,

and that in such matters the scope of judicial review is

very limited.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

at considerable length. The questions raised in the course

of arguments are centered around sections 3A, 3C and 3D

of the Act. It would be relevant to re-produce these

sections, which read thus:

“3A. Power to acquire land , etc.- (1)Where the Central Government is satisfied thatfor a public purpose any land is required forthe building, maintenance, management oroperation of a national highway or partthereof, it may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, declare its intention to acquire suchland.

(2) Every notification under sub-section(1) shall give a brief description of theland.

(3) The competent authority shall causethe substance of the notification to be

88

published in two local newspapers, one ofwhich will be in a vernacular language.

3C. Hearing of objections- (1) Anyperson interested in the land may, withintwenty-one days from the date of publicationof the notification under sub-section (1) ofsection 3A, object to the use of the land for thepurpose or purposes mentioned in the sub-section.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1)shall be made to the competent authority inwriting and shall set out the grounds thereofand the competent authority shall give theobjector an opportunity of being heard, eitherin person or by a legal practitioner, and may,after hearing all such objections and aftermaking such further enquiry, if any, as thecompetent authority thinks necessary, byorder, either allow or disallow the objections.

Explanation-For the purposes of thissub-section, “legal practitioner” has the samemeaning as in clause (i) of sub-section 1 ofsection 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of1961)

(3) Any order made by the competentauthority under sub-section (2) shall be final.

3D. Declaration of acquisition - (1)where no objection under sub-section(1) ofSection 3C has been made to the competentauthority within the period specified therein orwhere the competent authority has disallowedthe objection under sub-section (2) of thatsection, the competent authority shall, as soon

89

as may be, submit a report accordingly to theCentral Government and on receipt of suchreport, the Central Government shall declare,by notification in the Official Gazette, that theland should be acquired for the purpose orpurposes mentioned in sub-section (1) ofsection 3A.

(2) On the publication of the declarationunder sub-section (1), the land shall vestabsolutely in the Central Government free fromall encumbrances.

(3) Where in respect of any land, a

notification has been published under sub-

section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition but

no declaration under sub-section (1) has been

published within a period of one year from the

date of publication of that notification, the said

notification shall cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the saidperiod of one year, the period or periodsduring which any action or proceedings to betaken in pursuance of the notification issuedunder sub-section (1) of Section 3A is stayedby an order of a court shall be excluded.

(4) A declaration made by the CentralGovernment under sub-section (1) shall not becalled in question in any court or by any otherauthority.”

90

12.1 The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the

above reproduced provisions makes it clear that once the

Central Government is satisfied that any land is required

for the building, maintenance, management or operation of

a national highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its

intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in

the official Gazette giving brief description of the land. The

substance of the notification is also required to be

published in two local newspapers of which one has to be

in a vernacular language. Any person interested in the land

can file objection within 21 days from the date of

publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Such

objection is required to be made to the Competent

Authority in writing. Thereafter, the Competent Authority is

required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing

either in person or through a legal practitioner. This

exercise is to be followed by an order of the Competent

Authority either allowing or rejecting the objections. Where

no objection is made to the Competent Authority in terms

91

of Section 3C(1) or where the objections made by the

interested persons have been disallowed, the Competent

Authority is required to submit a report to the Central

Government, which shall then issue a notification in the

official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the

purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A(1). On

publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), the land

vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 3D provides that

where no declaration under sub-section (1) is published

within a period of one year from the date of publication of

notification under Section 3A(1), the said notification shall

cease to have any effect. By virtue of proviso to Section

3D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding

taken in pursuance of notification issued under Section

3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded while

computing the period of one year specified in Section

3D(3). ( See UNION OF INDIA –vs- KUSHALA SHETTY

– AIR 2011 SC 3210).

92

13. It is against this backdrop, at the outset, we

would like to consider and deal with the first ground of

challenge urged by Smt. Nalini Chidambaram – learned

senior counsel, who advanced leading arguments, on

behalf of the appellants in this group of writ appeals that

the competent authority’s decision/order passed under

section 3C(2) was not furnished to the appellants. That

apart, she submitted, even some of the appellants were

not given an opportunity of being heard as contemplated

by this provision, and that those who filed objections, their

objections were not considered in proper perspective. She

submitted, unlike section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1984 which confers a general right to object to acquisition

of land under section 4 of the said Act, section 3C(1) of the

Act gives vey limited right to object and that the order

passed by the competent authority being final in nature,

consideration of objections after giving an opportunity of

being heard is not an empty formality and the competent

Authority was required to objectively consider the

93

objections filed by the land owners and decide the same by

speaking order, dealing with all objections. In other

words, the orders rejecting the objections were assailed on

the ground that competent Authority had not recorded

cogent reasons for refusing to entertain their plea that the

proposed widening of NH17 beyond 45 mts. is not

necessary and the acquisition is not for the use of the

lands for the purpose contemplated under Section 3A. She

further submitted that it is binding on the competent

authority to communicate its order / decision taken in

terms of section 3C(2) so as to enable them, if the decision

is adverse, to challenge the same by way of writ petition

since no appeal is provided under the Act. In short, she

submitted that communication of the decision/order made

by the competent authority in terms of section 3C(2) is

mandatory in nature and that it was not done in case of

few land owners, in particular, one Ashok Raj the petition

W.P.No.13929/2011 to whom our attention was specifically

invited to. She also invited our attention to the averments

94

in his writ petition stating that the order/decision of the

competent authority was not furnished to him.

14. Having regard to the scheme of acquisition

enshrined in the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that

the competent authority is required to give the objectors

an opportunity of hearing either in person or through legal

practitioner and this exercise requires to be followed by an

order of competent authority either allowing or rejecting

the objections. In the present case, the respondents in

their statement of objections clearly stated that after

receiving the objections, the objectors were heard in

person and /or through legal practitioners. It is their case

that even the decision / orders of the competent authority,

disallowing their objections, under section 3C(2) of the Act

were also furnished/served on all the objectors and the

acknowledgments were also obtained. In the course of

hearing of the appeals, our attention was invited to the

acknowledgments of the service of decision/orders on the

95

objectors including Ashok Raj. However, on his behalf it

was submitted that the order which was subsequently

shown is stereotype and it does not demonstrate that the

objections raised by Ashok Raj were considered by the

competent authority objectively.

15. It is true that unlike section 5A of the Land

Acquisition Act which confers a general right to object

acquisition of land under section 4 thereof, section 3C (1)

of the NH Act gives a very limited right to object. It

further appears from the contents of section 3C(2) that the

competent authority is the authority which is empowered

to pass an order, either allowing or disallowing the

objections and the decision taken by it under sub-section

(2) shall be final as contemplated by sub-section (3) of

section 3C of the NH Act, unlike the provisions contained in

section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, it

is not necessary for the competent authority to forward its

report to the Central Government for taking final decision.

96

It is mandatory for the Central Government, as

contemplated by section 3D, to declare by notification in

the official gazette that the land shall be acquired for the

purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of

section 3A. On receipt of the report submitted by the

competent authority, disallowing the objections, and once

the declaration under Section 3D is published, the land

vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances. In short it is clear that the decision of the

competent authority either allowing or disallowing the

objection shall be final and therefore, hearing of the

objections cannot be stated to be an empty formality.

There has to be effective and objective consideration of the

objections.

16. In the present case we have perused few

orders issued by the competent authority disallowing the

objections. It would be relevant to re-produce the

decision/order of the Competent Authority and Asst.

97

Commissioner, Kundapur Sub-Division, Kundapur in case

of one of the appellants to appreciate the submissions

advanced on behalf of the appellants that there was no

application of mind by the competent authority while

disallowing the objections and that the competent

authority passed the orders under section 3C(2) of the Act

just to comply the formality of hearing. The decision in

case of Ashok Raj reads thus:

In the court of Competent Authority andAssistant Commissioner Kundapur Sub Division

KundapurCase No:-LAQ 1NH17 Tenka 4/10-11 Dated: 17-7-2010

Objector Name: Shri Ashok Raj, BSC,LLB, Yermal Beedu, Yermalu Post574119, Udupi Taluk

Requesting Department: NationalHighway Authority of India MangaloreSub: Land Acquisition for 4/6 laning inN.H.17 from Km.283/300 to 348/500(Kundapura Surathkal Section) – Orderunder Section 3-C (2) for the village TenkaS.No. 9/4B, 11/9B, 11/10, 11/11B.11/12B, 155/2B, 156/2B

Ref: 1) Notification under section 3A(1) ofthe National Highways Act, 1956No.S.O.2720(E) Dated 29-10-2009,published in the Gazette of India on 26-02-2010

98

2) Notification published in Timesof India (In English) & Vijaya Karnataka(In Kannada) Dated 24-04-2010. 3) Objection filed by Shri Ashok Rajon 5-5-2010.

Brief description of the objections - Only 45mtrs should be acquired. 60 mtrs at rural area is notnecessary. So only 45 mtrs should be acquired.Towards Mangalore left side i.e from Muloor maszidto Hermal kalsank acquiring is not correct. It shouldbe both side equal. If 60 mtrs both side equally 30-30mtrs should be acquired. Request to save theBasadi. Compensation should be paid at the presentmarket rate.

In this case, a notice was issued to him on 7-7-2010 and served on 15-7-2010. Theobjector/agent appeared in this court on 17-7-2010.The enquiry was completed on 17-7-2010.

Preliminary 3A Notification for the widening theN.H.17 into 4/6 lane for the village Tenka waspublished in the Central Gazette on 26-02-2010, andin English & Kannada Newspapers on 24-04-2010.The Kundapur – Surathkal Section of N.H.17widening/up gradation is an important roaddevelopment project for this region. The projectstretch connects Kundapur on the northern side andSurathkal on the southern side, passing throughUdupi District. This road leads to Mangalore andKerala, forming an important link connectingNorthern Districts of Karnataka and Kerala.

This project is of national importance, and ithas been taken up after a detailed survey, intensivefield work and feasibility study. Land Acquisition forNational Highways is to be done for 60 meters as perletter No. RW/NH-24-03-2006/13/2003-PIC, Dated22-12-2003. The project is also approved by theGovernment of India. This Land Acquisition is in the

99

public interest, for widening/four laning etc.),maintenance, management and operation of NationalHighway No.17 and 4/6 lane.

The objections filed by the objector has beenexamined, they are individual in nature. It is truethat the objector will be put to hardship, but he willbe compensated in accordance with law when agreater public interest in involved, individualobjections needs to be rejected. Width & Alignmentof road is decided by NHAI. Suitable compensationwill be paid after award enquiry.Order under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways

Act, 1956.In view of the above mentioned points, the

objection petition filed on 5-5-2010 has beenrejected.

This Order has been pronounced in the openCourt on 17-7-2010. Sd/- Sd/-Manager Competent Authority, N.H.17,Office of the & Assistant CommissionerSub-Divisional Officer KundapuraKundapura TqUdupi DistrictCopy to the concernedReverse page of the order reads thus: Sd/-

(Padmalatha)Wife

The person to whom notice is issued - ShriAshok Raj, as was not present in his house, noticehas been served to his wife. Sd/- Certified copy(XXX) Sd/-

ManagerOffice of the Sub-Divisional Officer

Kundapura Tq Udupi District”

100

16.1 The appellant – Ashok Raj, being the first

appellant in W.A. NO.902-954/12 and 5197/12 in W.P.

Nos.13929-14007/11, had filed objections on 4.5.2010.

He is a law graduate. Our attention was invited to his

objections to contend that the objections as reflected in

paragraphs 2 & 4 thereof were not considered by the

competent authority objectively. In paragraph 2 of the

objections dated 4.5.2010, it was stated that “the survey

sketch shows 40 mts. road was reserved earlier in 1968 by

issuing notification for NH and that has been completely

neglected at certain spots / points in the present survey

sketch and the area more than 40 mts. at few spots /

points and 60 mts. and at certain spots / points it is shown

separately in a single direction of the road”. Similarly, in

paragraph 4 in short he stated that the competent

authority has aligned NH- 17 so as to save the compound

of Masjid surrounded by stone marks. It is stated that

only to avoid acquisition of the compound wall of the

101

Masjid, they have aligned the NH – 17 resulting in

acquisition of his (Ashok Raj) land.

16.2 From the order pronounced by the competent

authority in the open Court on 17.7.2010 we find that the

objection regarding the Masjid was considered by the

competent authority and even the objection reflected in

paragraph 2 stands answered. It is stated in the order

that the project has been approved by the Government of

India and acquisition of the land for widening of NH – 17 to

the extent of 60 mts. is in the public interest. The order

further records that the acquisition would definitely cause

hardship to the appellant, but for that he can be

compensated in terms of monies in accordance with law.

Thus, the other objections also stand answered. It cannot

be stated that there was no application of mind. The

objectors in their objections or even in the petitions or

before us could not and did not point out as why the lands

are either not suitable for the use as contemplated by

Section 3A or the acquisition is not for the use of widening

102

/ building of the NH-17. The whole emphasis, in the

objections, is on the alignment of National Highway, which,

as observed earlier, is the decision of experts in the field

and that their decision cannot be and need not be

examined in the absence of any allegations of malafides.

17. It may be true that the competent authority

has not dealt with the objections in the manner in which

the Courts do. The competent authority cannot be

expected to pass an order crafted like a judicial order,

which is passed by legally trained mind, viz. a Judge. (See

KUSHALA SHETTY). Rejection of the objections, in the

present case, therefore, cannot be faulted only on that

ground. It is clear from the record and we are satisfied

that the competent authority had invited objections,

received the objections and after considering and dealing

with the same, issued the order as contemplated by

section 3C (2) of the Act disallowing the objections and

also furnished copies of the orders to all the objectors.

103

18. Even the contention urged by Mrs.

Chidambaram that the order / decision of the competent

authority, in case of Ashok Raj, was not furnished to him,

also deserves to be rejected outright. Though the

appellant-Ashok Raj has so stated in the writ petition, from

a photo copy of the decision / order placed on record for

our perusal, by learned counsel for the respondents,

clearly shows the original endorsement, for having

received the order, is made by the wife of Ashok Raj. In

the Court, Mrs. Chidambaram, on instructions denied

service of the order / decision even on his wife and her

signature. We, however, do not find any reason to reject

the claim of the respondents that it was served on the wife

of Ashok Raj. The record placed before us for our perusal,

is maintained in the ordinary course of business.

19. We have perused the entire record with the

assistance of learned counsel for the parties. NH – 17 was

built after acquiring the lands in 1968 itself. The present

104

acquisition is only for widening the existing NH 17 and not

for constructing/building new National Highway. The

allegation that alignment of NH at the particular spot was

with a view to save the Masjid or its wall, therefore, in our

opinion, deserves to be rejected outright. Learned counsel

appearing for the appellant also placed before us, for our

perusal the acknowledgments of service of the orders

passed under section 3C(2) of the Act upon the other

objectors/appellants. We do not find any reason

whatsoever to doubt the record which is maintained in the

ordinary course of business. Thus the contentions urged

by learned senior counsel for the appellant deserve to be

rejected not only on the questions of law but also on facts

of the case.

20. The mere fact that the appellants would suffer

hardship due to the acquisition, in our opinion, cannot be a

ground for quashing and setting aside the notifications

issued under section 3D of the Act. The competent

105

authority in the order / decision itself has stated that the

acquisition will put the objectors / appellants to hardship

but they will be compensated in accordance with law. It is

further observed in the order that when a greater public

interest is involved, hardship to the individuals cannot be a

ground for quashing the impugned notification. We are in

agreement with the competent authority that the hardship

cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned notification

as against the interest of the people at large. Acquisition,

whether it is under the Land Acquisition Act or under any

other enactment, bound to cause hardship to land owners

whose lands are subject matter of acquisition, and if the

notifications acquiring lands are set aside on this ground,

perhaps the acquisition would not only be difficult but it

would be impossible.

21. The next ground of challenge urged by learned

counsel appearing for the appellants is that as per the six

laning policy and four laning policy, width of the road

106

required is only 45 mts. and therefore, acquisition for

widening the NH - 17 to the extent of 60 mts. is

unnecessary and as such the acquisition cannot be stated

to be for the use of land as contemplated by section 3A of

the Act. It was further submitted that even the facts and

figures mentioned in the statement of objections are taken

as correct, what is required is only 52.6 mts. land for four

/ six laning national highway. Acquisition of land for

widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. is therefore,

unnecessary and can be avoided. It was further contended

that 60 mts. of width perhaps would be required “after” 30

years and therefore, at this juncture it cannot be stated

that the acquisition of excess land is for the use of national

highway as contemplated by section 3C of the Act. In

support of this contention, our attention was invited to the

Manual of Specifications and Standards for Six Laning of

National Highways through Public Private Partnership. The

Manual, according to learned counsel for the appellants,

which was prepared by Indian Road Congress(for short

107

`IRC’) as a consultancy assignment given by Planning

Commission has been completely overlooked by the

competent authority before issuing final notification under

section 3D. It was then submitted that the objections

raised by the appellants clearly demonstrate that

alignment as suggested by them (the appellants) would

save many dwelling units, factories, buildings, commercial

complexes, private gardens, etc.

22. As against this, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents in different appeals submitted that the

objection can be only to the use of land for the purpose

other than those under section 3A(1). They submitted

that the Act does not permit to raise an objection to

acquisition unless it is stated to be not for the use of the

land for the purpose mentioned in sub-section(1) of

Section 3A. In the present case the appellants have not

objected to the project / development but their objections

are only with respect to alignment of the highway so as to

108

avoid acquisition of their lands including the structures

standing thereon. It was further submitted that the

acquisition in the present case was for the project of great

national importance, i.e. the construction of a national

highway. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is a

professionally managed statutory body having expertise in

the field of development and maintenance of national

highways. The Courts, therefore, they submitted, are not

at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility

of a particular project or whether the particular alignment

would sub-serve the larger public interest.

23. In this connection, before we deal with the

submissions, it would be relevant to refer to the

Judgments referred to by learned counsel for the

respondents in support of their contentions. The learned

counsel appearing for the appellants, did not rely on any

Judgment either of High Courts or of the Supreme Court.

109

23.1 The Supreme Court in KUSHALA SHETTY had

an occasion to deal with challenge to the acquisition for

widening of the very same National Highway i.e. NH 17 in

the State of Karnataka and also the notifications issued

under section 3A(1), 3C(2) and 3D of the Act. The

acquisition in those proceedings was in respect of the lands

in 18 villages of the Mangalore Taluk in the State of

Karnataka for widening of NH 17 from Km. 358/000 to Km.

375/300; National Highway No. 48 from Km. 328/000 to

345/000 and National Highway No.13 from Km. 743/900

to Km. 745/000. The objection insofar as an opportunity

of being heard is concerned, as contemplated under

section 3C(2) of the Act, in the case before the Supreme

Court and in the present case, is similar. The Supreme

Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Act

and so also the contentions urged on behalf of the land

owners in paragraphs 20, 21 & 24 observed thus:

“20. The only reason assigned by theDivision Bench of the High Court for upsetting

110

the well considered order passed by thelearned Single Judge negating the respondents'challenge to the acquisition was thatdeclaration under Section 3D(1) was

published even before communication ofthe decision taken by the Competent

Authority in terms of Section 3C(2). Theprocess of reasoning adopted by the DivisionBench for recording its conclusion appears tohave been influenced by an assumption thatthe objections filed by the land owners had notbeen decided till the issue of declaration underSection 3D(1). However, the fact of the matteris that the Competent Authority had, aftergiving opportunity of personal hearing to theobjectors, passed order dated 11.10.2005 andrejected the objections. Though, that orderwas not crafted like a judicial order which ispassed by a legally trained mind, the rejectionof the representations made by therespondents cannot be faulted only on thatground. The Competent Authority didadvert to the substance of objections, the

details of which have been incorporated inAnnexure P-3 filed before this Court. Theconcerned officer rejected the same byobserving that the land proposed foracquisition is necessary for widening theexisting National Highways into four lanes. Ifthe consideration made by the CompetentAuthority is judged in the backdrop of the factthat a Special Purpose Vehicle wasincorporated with the name New MangalorePort Road Company Limited for implementationof the project known as New Mangalore PortRoad Connectivity Project from Surathkal toNantoor and B.C.Road to Padil along with

111

bypass from Nantoor to Padil, it is not possibleto castigate the proved reasons recorded bythe Competent Authority for rejecting theobjections.

21. The plea of the respondents thatalignment of the proposed widening of NationalHighways was manipulated to suit the vestedinterests sounds attractive but lacks substanceand merits rejection because except making abald assertion, the respondents have neithergiven particulars of the persons sought to befavoured nor placed any material to primafacie prove that the execution of the project ofwidening the National Highways is actuated bymala fides and, in the absence of properpleadings and material, neither the High Courtcould nor this Court can make a roving enquiryto fish out some material and draw a dubiousconclusion that the decision and actions of theappellants are tainted by mala fides.

“24. Here, it will be apposite to mentionthat NHAI is a professionally managedstatutory body having expertise in the field ofdevelopment and maintenance of NationalHighways. The projects involving constructionof new highways and widening anddevelopment of the existing highways, whichare vital for development of infrastructure inthe country, are entrusted to experts in thefield of highways. It comprises of personshaving vast knowledge and expertise in thefield of highway development andmaintenance. NHAI prepares and implementsprojects relating to development andmaintenance of National Highways after

112

thorough study by experts in different fields.Detailed project reports are prepared keepingin view the relative factors including intensityof heavy vehicular traffic and larger publicinterest. The Courts are not at all equippedto decide upon the viability and feasibility

of the particular project and whether theparticular alignment would subserve the

larger public interest. In such matters, thescope of judicial review is very limited.

The Court can nullify the acquisition ofland and, in rarest of rare cases, the

particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or

tainted due to mala fides. In the case inhand, neither any violation of mandate of the1956 Act has been established nor the chargeof malice in fact has been proved. Therefore,the order under challenge cannot besustained”.

(emphasis supplied)

23.2 In COMPETENT AUTHORITY vs.

BARANGAORE JUTE FACTORY & ORS. – (2005) 13

SCC 477, the Supreme Court while dealing with the

challenge to the acquisition under the provisions of the Act

in paragraph 8, observed thus:

“……..We would however, like to addthat unlike Section 5-A of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 which confers a general right toobject to acquisition of land under Section 4 of

113

the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the NationalHighways Act gives a very limited right toobject. The objection can be only to theuse of the land under acquisition for

purposes other than those under Section3-A(1). The Act confers no right to

object to acquisition as such. This answersthe argument advanced by the learnedcounsel for NHAI that failure to file objectionsdisentitles the writ petitioners to object to theacquisition. The Act confers no general rightto object, therefore, failure to object becomesirrelevant. The learned counsel relied on thejudgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V.Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, thisjudgment has no application in the facts of thepresent case where the right to object is avery limited right. The case cited is a caseunder the land Acquisition Act, 1894 whichconfers a general right to object to acquisitionof land under Section 5-A. Failure to exercisethat right could be said to be acquiescence.The National Highways Act confers no

such right. Under this Act there is noright to object to acquisition of land

except on the question of its user.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.3 In SUBHASHGIR KUSHALGIR GOSAVI vs.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERS AND

ORS. – AIR 1996 SC 3169 the Supreme Court was

dealing with the notification under section 4 of the Land

114

Acquisition Act. Though the provisions of the NH Act were

not under consideration, it would be relevant to notice the

observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 3

of the Judgment which in our opinion would squarely apply

even to the acquisition under the provisions of the Act.

Paragraph 3 reads thus:

“ The only question is: Whether theimpugned notification is bad in law? Extensionof the bus stand obviously is a public purposeand, therefore, it per se cannot be said to bebad in law. It is true as pointed out by theCollector and the representation datedAugust 8, 1986 made in that behalf by

some people that there is congestion andacquisition is not in public interest. But it

is for the Government to take a decisionand it is not for the Court to decide as to

which place is more convenient. Since theGovernment have taken a decision thatacquiring the land for extension of the busstand and bus depot is in the public interest, itcannot be said that the exercise of the poweris arbitrary.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.4 In H.N. NANJE GOWDA vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA – ILR 1996 KAR. 1649 the Division Bench

consisting of S. RAJENDRA BABU and R.V. RAVEENDRAN

115

JJ. as their Lordships then were, dealing with the

notifications issued under the provisions of Karnataka

Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, in paragraph 8

observed thus:

“We shall now take up the nextcontention that whether the said airport couldhave been located south of Devanahalli. Asstated earlier, Ramanathan Committee wasentrusted with the purpose of locating theairport in any of the areas close to BangaloreCity. The committee considered six points oflocation and ultimately arrived at theconclusion that Devanahalli South was the bestsuited for the purpose. Therefore, when thecommittee is constituted consisting of

experts in the field and they examine thematter and recommend – to the

concerned authorities that a particularplace would be best suited for the

purpose, we do not think we can re-examine the matter and substitute our

opinion. The argument advanced on behalf ofthe petitioners that there is no application ofmind in this regard does not have any force.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.5 In STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. vs. GURDIAL

SINGH & ORS– (1980)2 SCC 471, the Supreme Court

while dealing with the acquisition under the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act in paragraph 8 observed thus:

116

“First, what are the facts? A grainmarket was the public purpose for whichgovernment wanted land to be acquired.Perfectly valid. Which land was to be taken?This power to select is left to the responsiblediscretion of government under the Act,subject to Articles 14, 19 and 31 (then). Thecourt is handcuffed in this jurisdiction

and cannot raise its hand against what itthinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in

administrative action is the property ofthe executive and judicial circumspection

keeps the court lock-jawed save wherepower has been polluted by oblique ends

or is otherwise void on well established

grounds. The constitutional balance cannotbe upset.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.6 In STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER v.

JAIPAL SINGH & ORS. AIR 1997 SC 452, in

paragraphs 5 & 7 the Supreme Court observed thus:

“5. We have repeatedly held in severaljudgments that there is no general policy assuch that all the lands on which constructionhas come to be made are required to bedeleted from the acquisition.

7. …………….If the shops were

constructed prior to the publication of theimpugned notification under Section 4(1),

necessarily compensation has to bedetermined in accordance with the

provisions of sub-section (1) of Section

117

23. In case the construction came to bemade after the notification under Section

4(1), necessarily they cannot claim anycompensation”.

(emphasis supplied)

24. Keeping the law laid down by the Supreme

Court and this Court in view, we would now like to

examine the contention advanced by learned counsel for

the appellants that acquisition of land for widening the

road to the extent of 60 mts. is unnecessary and therefore,

acquisition of anything above 45 mts. is not for the use of

the land for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of

section 3A of the NH Act.

25. The NH Act was enacted by the parliament to

provide for declaration of certain highways as national

highways and for matters connected therewith. This was

as a part of a mission undertaken by Govt. of India for

improvement of road infrastructure in the country. An

ambitious National Highway Development Project has been

118

taken up into seven phases where about 26,000 Kms.

length of National Highway was decided to be up-graded to

4-lane divided carriageway facility and 6,500 Km. of

National Highways was decided to be up-graded to 6 lane

facilities. 20,000 Kms. of existing deficient stretches were

decided to be improved to two lane with paved shoulder

facility, construction of 1000 Kms. of expressways and

construction of bypasses, ring roads, flyovers, etc. at

major intersections, etc. It was decided to implement all

these phases through Public Private Partnership for

attracting private capital, improving efficiencies and

optimizing the cost.

25.1 The Government of India is committed for

providing road infrastructure comparable to the world

standards. Accountability for providing safe and reliable

road network rests with the Government. While

implementing the decision for improvement of road

infrastructure in the country, the Government focused its

119

attention to amenities to the users so that they get value

for their money on the developed National Highways.

Further, the Government in order to improve road

infrastructure constituted a Technical Committee for

finalization of the Manual for adoption of National

Highways Works to be taken up through the Model

Concession Agreement for Public Private Partnership

projects. The Committee published a Manual of

specifications and standards for 4 laning and 6 laning of

National Highways to be constructed through Public Private

Partnership. There does not appear to be any dispute that

the recommendations in the Manual are in the nature of

guidelines. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that

while recommending width of National Highways the

committee has mentioned as to what should be the

minimum width of median, paved carriageway on both

sides of median, earthen shoulder, side drain, etc.

Recommendation therefore cannot be taken as maximum,

as tried to be contended by learned counsel appearing for

120

the appellants. The size (width) of the highway depends

upon the requirement and it should not be less than what

is stipulated in the guidelines.

25.2 While designing the horizontal alignment, it is

necessary to see that it is fluent and blend well with the

surrounding topography, sharp curves should not be

introduced at the end of long tangent since those could be

extremely hazardous. The curves should be sufficiently

long and have suitable transitions to provide pleasant

appearance, sufficient length between two curves should

be provided for introduction of requisite transition curves

and required super elevation, the curves in the same

direction separated by short tangent known as broken

back curves should be avoided as far as possible and

wherever possible, such portion may be designed with

longer single curve and to avoid distortion in appearance,

the horizontal alignment should be coordinated carefully

121

with the longitudinal profile. Grade changes should not be

too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities.

26. In the present case, the respondents issued

notification under section 3 D of the Act for acquisition of

the land for widening the NH - 17 to the extent of 60 mts.

as a part of a mission undertaken by Government of India

for improvement of road infrastructure in the country. For

the existing NH 17 the lands were acquired some time in

1968. Though presently they propose to up-grade NH –

17 to four lane divided carriageway facilities, they want to

further up-grade it to six lane facilities. Though it is not

stated as to when exactly they propose to up-grade it to

six lane facilities, it is their case that keeping in view the

requirements “for” the next 30 years, they have decided to

acquire land for widening of the existing national Highway

– 17 to the extent of 60 mts. at this stage only so as to

avoid successive acquisitions in future. Decision to have

six lane facilities is not “after” 30 years, as tried to be

122

contended by learned counsel for appellants, but “for the

next” 30 years. In other words, the present acquisition is

proposed keeping in view the requirement for 30 years

from now.

27. It is not in dispute that the proposal for

widening existing NH – 17 is by NHAI which is a

professionally managed statutory body having expertise in

the field of development and maintenance of National

Highways. It is not in dispute that the project of widening

of the existing NH – 17, is vital for development of

infrastructure in the country and the development is being

carried out by the experts in the field of highways.

Further, it is not in dispute that the persons involved in the

project are having vast knowledge and expertise in the

field of highway development and maintenance. They

have prepared detailed project report keeping in view the

relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic

and public interest. It is in this backdrop as settled by the

123

Supreme Court in the Judgments referred to above, the

Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon viability and

feasibility of the particular project and whether particular

alignment would sub-serve larger public interest. In short,

the scope of judicial review in such cases is absolutely

limited unless the project is found to be ex-facie contrary

to the mandate of law or tainted due to malafides. In the

present case, the appellants have not alleged any

malafides and could not point out or demonstrate that it is

contrary to the mandate of law or there is any violation of

the mandate of the NH Act.

28. The facts and figures reflected in the Manual of

Specifications and Standards for Six Laning of National

Highways through Public Private Partnership or in the

statement of objections would only show that what should

be the size of the road and its different sections such as

median, paved carriageway, raised median, earthen

shoulder, service roads, separation islands, footpath, side

124

drain, utility corridors, etc. On the basis of the facts and

figures reflected in the manual and in the statement of

objections, it cannot be stated that the land being acquired

for widening the existing national highway from 45 mts. to

60 mts. is unnecessary and that four and six lane facility

could be provided in 45 mts. The courts are not at all

equipped to decide upon the feasibility of the particular

project and whether particular width or alignment would

sub-serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the

scope of judicial review is very limited. In any case, it

cannot be stated that the acquisition of land for widening

the existing NH – 17 to the extent of 60 mts. is not for the

use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-

section (1) of section 3A of the Act. The ground of

objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected outright.

29. In the present case, the total extent of land

being acquired is 126 hectares for widening of existing

national highway in the stretch of 90.8 kms. The

125

respondents have already taken possession of the land to

the extent of 102.30 hectares. 52.64 % of the work is

complete. Due to this acquisition about 1250 structures

have been affected out of which the land owners owning

38 structures only are before the Court. Except the

appellants, all other land owners have accepted the

acquisition. Out of the total number of appellants before

Court, hardly 45 – 50% of the appellants raised objections

and hearing to all those who desired to appear before the

competent authority was given and orders passed by the

competent authority were communicated to them. Out of

90.8 Kms. stretch of road, the total length of the road

involved in the present appeals is hardly 6 Kms. Thus, it is

clear that 90% of the land owners have either not made

any grievance about acquisition of their lands and their

lands stood validly acquired under the provisions of the

Act. The occupants of 9/10 of the acquired lands have not

even thought it fit to challenge these acquisition

proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10 of lands are

126

agitating their grievance since beginning. It is on this

ground also the appeals deserve to be dismissed. (see OM

PRAKASH & ANR. vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS – AIR

1998 SC 2504). Similarly, merely because the buildings

have been constructed on the lands, such lands cannot be

deleted from acquisition. The Supreme Court in JAIPAL

SINGH (supra) has reiterated that there is no general

policy as such that the lands on which constructions are

made should be deleted from the acquisition. It is further

clarified that if the construction is held to be made prior to

publication of the preliminary notification, then alone the

owners or the persons affected would be entitled for

compensation.

30. In one of the appeals the question regarding a

building called “High Point” was raised by Mr. Nitish –

learned advocate appearing for the appellants. We have

perused the sketch of the square where the building is

situated. We have noticed that the respondents without

127

changing the central line of the existing NH-17proposed to

widen it on both the sides equally. From perusal of the

sketch, we are also satisfied that it was not possible for

them to change the central line of the road or re-align the

road so as to save the building “High Point”. Though we

were also satisfied that acquisition, affecting the building

“High Point” would cause hardship to the occupants of the

building, but that by itself cannot be a ground for quashing

the notification or even to issue any direction to re-align

the road at that spot. The occupants or the persons who

will be affected by this notification will definitely be entitled

for compensation since the building “High Point” was in

existence on the date of notification under section 3A of

the Act.

31. It is now well settled that the public interest is

paramount as against private interest. The acquisition

undoubtedly causes grave hardship to the persons

concerned but that cannot be a ground to stall the project

128

of great national importance. The persons affected, the

number of which may be absolutely negligible, can be

compensated in terms of monies. The people at large, on

the other hand cannot be made to suffer if the project is

not completed in the manner in which the experts in the

field desire to proceed. The projects are for the people at

large and not to be implemented to suit the convenience of

any individual or group of people. In the present case, we

know that, NH – 17 at places, passes through congested

areas but it is for the Government to decide as to which

place is more convenient and if it is unavoidable for the

concerned authorities to change alignment of the road, the

decision taken in that regard cannot be said to be arbitrary

decision, in particular, when no malafides are alleged. In

any case, Court cannot decide as to which place is more

convenient and whether the national highway could be re-

aligned so as to save the properties of litigants before the

Court. Thus, on this ground also the challenge deserves to

be rejected.

129

32. That takes us to consider the contention urged

in rejoinder that the extent of the lands reflected in the

notification under section 3A and the notification under

section 3D differs. In other words, it was contended that

the lands that were proposed to be acquired under the

preliminary notification were much more than the lands

reflected in the final notification under section 3D of the

Act. On the basis thereof, it was submitted that some

lands were dropped and the decision for dropping those

lands was arbitrary. We find absolutely, no merit in this

contention. As per the final notification issued under

section 3D, it is clear that no land, that was proposed to be

acquired in the notification under Section 3A has been

deleted from acquisition. It appears that in the preliminary

notification, there were some clerical errors in mentioning

the facts and figures in respect of the extent of land and

that they were not accurate and when the final notification

was issued, the errors were corrected and that is how on

paper the actual acquisition or the extent of the lands

130

being acquired was reduced without compromising the

proposed width of NH – 17. There is no allegation that

after the notifications under section 3A were issued they

have decided to reduce the proposed width of the road at

any spot / place in the stretch of 90.8 kms. of the length of

the national highway to save any land or to help any

particular individual. In fact, most of the appellants were

benefited in view of the final and accurate figures reflected

in 3D notification. This contention was urged only by Mr.

Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel in rejoinder in Writ

Appeal No.331/12.

33. Next we would like to consider the submission

of the learned senior counsel Mrs. Chidambaram that

though right to property is no longer a fundamental right,

the constitutional right under Article 300-A cannot be

circumscribed. Under Article 300-A, no person shall be

deprived of his property save by authority of law. She

submitted that the right under Article 300-A is a valuable

131

right and the person cannot be deprived of his property

without following due process of law. She made this

submission in the light of the case of the appellants that no

opportunity of being heard was given to them before

issuing final notification under section 3D of the Act. We

have already considered whether hearing was given and

the order / decision under section 3C was served on the

appellants in the earlier part of the Judgment. The power

of acquisition is the sovereign or prerogative power of the

Government to acquire property. Such power exists

independent of Article 300-A of the Constitution which

merely indicates the limitations on the power of acquisition

by the State. Thus, we do not find any force in the

submission of learned counsel for the parties based on

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

34. Next we would like to consider the submission

of Mrs. Chidambaram – learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants that if 60 mts. highway is a national

132

policy of the NHAI, there is no reason why States of Kerala

and Goa should be excluded from national policy merely

because the Governments there objected for acquisition of

lands for widening the existing NH – 17. She further

submitted, and if the respondents could exclude the States

of Kerala and Goa, why are they proceeding with the

acquisition in the State of Karnataka when the Chief

Minister of Karnataka has taken decision which was

communicated to the respondents vide letter dated

18.5.2010. We have perused the said letter signed by

Under Secretary to Government, Public Works, Port &

Inland Water Transport Dept., (Communication). It was

addressed to Chief General Manager (T), NHAI. This letter

speaks about the decision taken by the Chief Minister. We

are not prepared to take cognizance of this letter for more

than one reason. Firstly, it speaks about the decision of

the Chief Minister of Karnataka and not the decision of the

Government of Karnataka and secondly, no such decision

taken by the State Government is placed on record. At the

133

end of the letter, it is stated that the Hon’ble Chief Minister

of Karnataka has taken the decision to limit expansion of

national highways width to 45 mts. in urban area and 60

mts. in rural area in future. In reply, the NHAI addressed

a letter dated 26th May, 2010 to the Chief Minister, signed

by the Chief General Manager. In this letter, reference to

the meeting convened by the Chief Minister of Karnataka

on 16.4.2010 is made, and it is stated that after due

deliberations, the Chief Minister had understood the

requirement of 60 mts. right of way and, therefore, the

decision communicated vide letter dated 18.5.2010 is

contrary to the decision taken in the meeting. It would be

advantageous to re-produce the further contents of the

letter to appreciate the stand of the respondents and their

response to the communication dated 18.5.2010:

“ It is worth mentioning that Karnatakais growing state with large scale industrialdevelopment planned by Govt. of Karnatakaand the traffic intensity on NH – 17 is bound toincrease manifold in due course of time. TheGOK has recognized the need for development

134

of quality infrastructure including road sectoras an essential means to achieve rapideconomic growth in the State. The StateGovernment in the budget 2009 – 10 spelledout its to implement “ Suvarna KarnatakaDevelopment Work Programme” through thelength and breadth of the State for industrialdevelopment.

Under the above circumstances it isdesirable to develop NH – 17 immediately to 4laning with provision for further extension to 6laning. Similar requirement is felt on NH – 14,NH – 17 and NH – 63 also.

In view of the above it is once againemphasized that the decision of Hon’ble ChiefMinister conveyed vide your above referredletter may kindly be reviewed and NHAI maykindly be allowed to proceed with acquisition of60 m ROW along NH – 17.”

34.1 There is one more letter placed on record by

the respondents dated 15th June, 2010 of the NHAI

addressed to the Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-

Division, Mangalore. The following contents of the letter in

our opinion are relevant and need to be noticed:

“The 60 m ROW is necessary for fourlaning highway, side drains, service roads andto provide space for public utilities such asWater Supply pipe line, sewage line, HT/LT

135

lines, telephones cables etc., apart from futurewidening requirement.

As you are kindly aware, the stretch ofNH – 17 from Nantoor Circle to MahaveerCircle and Mahaveer Circle to Ullal. Henceadditional and width is absolutely necessary forproviding embankment slopes as per IRCrequirement. If the less width is acquired, theresidential houses/shops that get damagedduring the construction of the highway andoperation of highway. In the larger interest ofthe safety measures, it is absolutely essentialfor acquisition of 60 m ROW width.”

Despite a lot of correspondence between the respondents

and the Government of Karnataka in respect of NH – 17, it

appears that ultimately Government of Karnataka vide its

communication dated 8.12.2010 signed by Under

Secretary for the Secretary, Public Works, Ports & Inland

Water Transport, Bangalore, informing the Deputy

Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, that

the permission had been granted by the Government of

Karnataka for issue of the notification under section 3D of

the Act for 60 mts. width; four lane of highway in Kadri,

Maroli, Kankanady, Jeppinamogaru village and Nantoor to

136

Talapady road. There is no dispute that these villages

cover the lands of the appellants. This correspondence

and, in particular the letter dated 8.12.2010, clearly shows

that ultimately Government of Karnataka also had given its

green signal for widening of the existing national highway

to the extent of 60 mts. Learned Government Advocate

also submitted that the State Government has taken

decision to support the national policy to widen the

existing NH 17 to the extent of 60 mts. Insofar as the

purported decisions taken by the Kerala Government and

Goa Government are concerned, we would not like to

express any opinion in respect thereof because no such

decisions are placed before us, and secondly, even if there

are any decisions, they are not subject matter of these

appeals and in any case such decisions of the other State

Governments will not have any effect or bearing on merits

of these appeals and hence this submission also must be

rejected.

137

35. Lastly we would like to consider the submission

advanced by learned senior advocate in rejoinder. Though

this ground was not argued initially, we have entertained

the submission in the interest of justice. It was submitted

that there was no application of mind to the guidelines and

the respondents did not follow the uniform norms. It was

submitted that the acquisition notification indicated that

the area of 60 mts. in the region of Ambalapady of Udupi

Taluk is proposed to be acquired whereas in the region of

Kundapur and Kota, at certain places / spots, the land

acquisition is less than 45 mts. for NH – 17 which passes

through the same stretch and therefore, it was wrong on

their part to apply different yard stick for acquiring more

land in a particular stretch and less land in another. We

have perused the averments to this effect in paragraph 15

of the Writ Petition Nos.4988/11 to 5070/11 (W.A.955-

1012 & 1520-1544/12). The respondent no.1 (NHAI) in

reply to these averments in paragraph 18 of the statement

of objections has stated as follows:

138

“……………. It is submitted that the DetailedProject Report has been prepared only after the in-depth investigations and surveys. Considering thesocio economical impacts in Kundapur and Kotatowns, which are congested town, the DPRConsultant has proposed 45 m Right of Way(ROW) for the reason that at the time of feasibilitystage of the project study itself, the consultant hasidentified Kundapur and Kota as the mostvulnerable stretches along the project roadconsidering the social impact. As Kota is an oldtowns, most of the buildings within 45 m ROW areold semi pucca type and the number of buildingsgetting affected increases substantially if the Rightof way is increased to 60 m. In Kundapur and Kotatown because of less ROW width, it has been proposedto construct RCC drain along with cover slab which iscosting more compared to unlined drain. Therefore,the comparison with Kundapur and Kota town isunreasonable. The RCC drain cannot be constructed allalong the project length of 90 km. due to higher cost.There is no space available for plantation in Kundapur

and Kota town and future public amenities such asUnder Ground Drainages (UGD) cannot be laid inKundapur and Kota town. Any other futureexpansion or improvements can be taken up onlyafter the additional land acquisition. It issubmitted that the land acquisition process willconsume considerable time which will result inTime Over Run and Cost Over Run of thedevelopment works. The Highway running inAmbalpadi and Udupi town is a bypass constructedin the year 1972-74. Hence, it cannot becompared with Kundapur and Kota town.”

35.1 Having considered the explanation offered by

respondent no.1 in the aforementioned paragraph we do

139

not find any force in the submission advanced by learned

senior Advocate in rejoinder. As observed by the Supreme

Court in KUSHALA SHETTY this Court cannot make a

roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a

dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the

appellants are tainted when there are no allegations of

malafides. There is no dispute that NHAI is a

professionally managed statutory body having expertise in

the field and development and maintenance of national

highways. In any case, the Court cannot substitute its

opinion as against the decision taken by the experts

committee having vast knowledge and expertise in the

field of highway development and maintenance.

36. It is now well settled that acquisition for the

benefit of public at large is not to be lightly quashed and

extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. The Courts

are expected to keep the larger public interest in mind

while exercising their powers in the matters where

140

notifications issued for acquisition of land are under

challenge. Powers under Article 226 will have to be

exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not

merely on the making out a legal point in the matter of

land acquisition for public purpose. In the result the

appeals fail and dismissed as such. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Insofar as appellant no.5 Padmavathi Shanhogue

and appellant no.6 Dinakar Shenoy in the group of appeals

i.e. W.A. Nos.336 – 363/12 are concerned, their respective

appeals are allowed to be withdrawn for the reasons stated

in their memos dated 7.2.2013 filed by the learned counsel

for appellants no.5 & 6.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/

JUDGEsak