IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.101396/2021 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN :

1. ASHOK S/O. TATOBA KANAGALE AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

2. PRAKASH S/O. TATOBA KANAGALE AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

3. ANNAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA KANAGALE AGE. 95 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

4. RAMU S/O. KALLAPPA KANAGALE AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

5. SHANTINATH S/O. BANDU KANAGALE AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

6. JINNAPPA S/O. TAVANAPPA KANAGALE AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287.

2

7. SURESH S/O. SATYANNA MUKARE AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHALI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591287. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI ADV. FOR SRI PRAVEEN P JOSHI, ADV.)

AND :

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI.

2. THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKODI TALUK, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, CHIKKODI-591201

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI-591201.

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI-591201.

5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.5.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 NOT TO CARRYOUT ROAD WIDENING WORK IN SURVEY NOS.4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/2A, 4/2B AND 4/2C SITUATED AT KOTHALI VILLAGE TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND ACT OF 2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-C. 3

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

: ORDER :

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs.

i. Kindly issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 and 4 not to carryout road widening work in survey No.4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/2A, 4/2B, 4/2C situated at Kothali village Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belagavi, without following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, and Act of 2013 and consequently to consider the representation dated 21.02.2021 as per Annexure-C.

ii. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in he circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case of the petitioners is that, they are the absolute owners of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.4/1,

4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/2A, 4/2B & 4/2C situated at

Kothali village of Chikkodi taluk Belagavi district. 4

3. It is further case of the petitioners that in the said land as per the village map there is a existing cart road. Now the respondents want to widen that existing cart road without acquiring the lands of the petitioners as per Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the petitioners have given representation vide Annexure-C to the 3rd respondent/Executing Engineer, PWD, Chikkodi Division for payment of compensation, but the 3 rd respondent has not consider the same. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are the owners of the said lands. There was a cart road existing which was used by villagers from time immemorial. Now the respondents want to widen that road without acquiring the lands which are belong to the petitioners. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2020 (2)

SCC 569 . 5

5. Per contra, Sri Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State has contended that they are not forming the road on any private land. He further contended that it was a Major District Road (“MDR” for short), now this road has been converted into State

Highway. Therefore, the respondents are intending to widen that road. While widening the road, have not encroached upon any land of the petitioners. That the road which is existing, the same is getting widened.

Hence he contended that the prayer sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

7. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of lands bearing Sy.Nos. 4/1,

4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/2A, 4/2B & 4/2C situated at

Kothali village of Chikkodi taluk, Belagavi district. There was an existing cart road on the said land, which was being used by the villagers from time immemorial. Now 6

the respondents widening the said road by encroaching the lands of the petitioners.

8. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. Paragraph No.2 of the same is extracted below:

2. It is respectfully submitted that, the averments made in the writ petition are partially true to that fact case is concerned it is admitted fact that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the respective lands and are in cultivation and possession of the lands situated at Kothali village taluk . It is also admitted fact that as per the village map there exist a cart road in the land belongings to the petitioners and said road is used for the villagers to reach their respective lands. It is relevant to state that as per the village map it can be seen that the cart road is shown and it passes through all the lands including petitioner survey number is concerned. The copy of the village entire Map is here with produced as Annexure-R.1 . It is relevant to state that the respondents herein are widening the road which was already in existences and there by no acquired any lands of the villagers hence initiations of acquisition proceedings does not arise. It is relevant to state that as per the photographs it can be seen that since the entire 7

road work has been completed only near the survey numbers of the petitioners land are concerned the road work has been stopped. It can be also seen from the said photo graphs that the petitioners have fenced to their respective lands and the respondents herein have not encroached any of the petitioners lands are concerned and the said work has been conducted only in the interest of the public. The copies of the photo graphs are herewith produced as vide Annexure-R2, R.3 R.4 respectively.

9. In paragraph No.2, the respondents have admitted that the petitioners are the owners of the above said land and they are in possession of the said properties and also admitted that there is an existing cart road in the lands belong to the petitioners. They further stated that since, that road was earlier called as

Major District Road, now it has been converted into

State Highway and they are widening the same without encroaching any private property.

10. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by Constitution (Forty-forth

Amendment) Act, 1978. However, it continue to be a human right and also it is a constitutional right under 8

Article 300-A. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The forcible dispossession of a person of his private property without due process of law would be violating of human right and also constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are permitted to submit a detailed representation along with necessary documents to the 1 st respondent-Deputy Commissioner.

The 1 st respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass an order after hearing the petitioners. If the authority comes to the conclusion that the respondents are widening the road in private lands which are belong to petitioners, the respondents has to acquire the land as per Land Acquisition Act and to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court pass the following order. 9

: ORDER :

1. The petitioners are directed to submit the

representation along with necessary

documents to the 1 st respondent-Deputy

Commissioner within four weeks from

today.

2. The 1 st respondent Deputy Commissioner is

directed to consider the representation of

the petitioner after hearing the petitioners

and pass appropriate order within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of

representation submitted by the petitioners.

3. If the 1 st respondent-Deputy Commissioner

comes to the conclusion that the properties

in which the respondents are widening the

road belong to the petitioners, the

respondents shall acquire the said lands

and they shall pay the compensation as per

the Land Acquisition Act. 10

With these observations the above writ petition is disposed off.

In view of the disposal of the above writ petition, pending application does not survive for consideration.

Sd/- JUDGE EM