IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 9th day of November, 2015

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE B V NAGARATHNA

Writ Petition Nos. 44090-44105 of 2015 (GM-RES)-PIL

BETWEEN:

1. SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O SRIPATHI RAO KUMKUMA YELLUR VILLAGE ADMAR POST DIST - 574119

2. GURU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SRI PARAMESHWARA JAYADURGA NAGARA KANNARPADY KADEKAR VILLAGE UDUPI TQ - 576103

3. SURAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SRI Y S MAGGADE BEEDU YERMAL UDUPI TQ - 574119

4. PUSHPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2

D/O LATE SANJEEVA NAVANEETHA OPP GOVT HIGH SCHOOL NH 66 HANUMANTHA NAGAR PUTTUR, UDUPI DIST - 576105

5. KOTIAN MOOLASTHANA MUKKUNDA GUDDE NEAR N I T K SRINIVASANAGAR SURATHKAL TQ - 575025 BY ITS GEN SECRETARY NAVEEN CHANDRA

6. ARNOLD D’SILVA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE LOUIS D SILVA AMRITHA, NEAR HILTON COMPLEX YERMAL YENAGUDDE KATAPADY - 574105

7. SHEELA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS D/O VASU A SHETTY CHANDRA NIVAS NADSAL VILLAGE POST UDUPI TQ DIST - 574111

8. P LATHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O M P PRADEEPA KUMAR BITU D DABA HEJMADY POST UDUPI TQ DIST - 574103

9. SMITHA S KAMATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SHESHAGIRI N KAMATH MOODALABETTU VILLAGE POST KATAPADI 574105 UDUPI TQ DIST

3

10. SUJATHA RATHNAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O RATHNA KUMAR PRITHVI D NO 6-1-91C SARALAYA COMPOUND BHUJANGA RAO ROAD VOLAKAD NO 76 B BETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TQ DIST - 576101

11. K MANJUNATHA HOLLA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O K NARASIMHA HOLLA KUNJI GUDI KARKODA VILLAGE & POST SALIGRAMA UDUPI TQ DIST - 576231

12. FATHIMA BI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O USMAN SAHEBN C/O NAZI SHEIKH 2/11 III FLOOR SPENCER ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE - 560005

13. M SRIKANTH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE ANANTHA KRISHNA RAO 4-2-77 GANGA PRASAD NGO COLONY III CROSS, NEAR FIRE STATION UDUPI - 576103

14. ANURADHA M SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS JAGANNATH SHETTY C/O MANOHAR SHETTY RADHA CHAYA ULIYARGOLI KAUP UDUPI TQ DIST - 574106

15. NANDAKISHORE V BALLAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O A VARADARAJA BALLAL FLAT NO 305, S3 BLOCK SILVER WOOD REGENCY AMRUTHA COLLEGE ROAD 4

KASAVANAHALLI BANGALORE - 5600 35

16. BHARATHI KALIANPUR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O BHASKAR SHETTIGAR KT-4-242/2, INDIRANAGAR ROAD KOTEGUDI POST KATAPADY - 574105 UDUPI DIST ... PETITIONERS

(By Shri Puttige R. Ramesh, Advocate )

AND :

1. UNION OF BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI - 110 001

2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITIES OF INDIA ROS VILLE, BISHOPS COMPOUND BEHIND STATE BANK OF MYSORE VALENICA, KANAKANADY MANGALORE - 575002 BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ASST COMMISSIONER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITIES OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE DY COMMISSIONER MANGALURU, DK DISTRICT - 575001

4. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, DR B R A ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 ... RESPONDENTS

(By Ms. Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate, for R-4)

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 5

OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER SO AS TO READ THE POWER OF DE-NOTIFY IN INTO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 & ETC

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

This is a public interest litigation pointing out that unnecessary excess lands were notified for the purpose of construction of National Highway No 17. When the petitioners approached the national highway authorities, they expressed their inability to de-notify any portion of such excess land.

2. Mr Puttige Ramesh, learned advocate for the petitioners, strenuously, argues that excess lands were unnecessarily acquired and when the petitioners pointed out the same to the national highway authorities, they pleaded their inability to de-notify the excess land on the ground that there has been no provision in the National

Highways Act, 1956, empowering the authorities to de- 6

notify any land, which has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a national highway.

3. The national highway authority is a professionally managed body. It has experts to decide what land is necessary for the construction by taking into consideration the quantum of vehicles to be plied in the particular highway. Such matters are at the domain of the national highway authority. We cannot substitute our opinion in such matters.

4. Mr Puttige Ramesh, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that the Indian Road Congress gave certain suggestion in the matter of width of the national highways and the authorities in the national highway authority are bound by such suggestions. Therefore, the proposal to acquire the land, not in conformity with the suggestions of the Indian Road Congress, was improper.

7

5. The suggestions of the Indian Road Congress are only guidelines and not sacrosanct for the purpose of construction of national highways. It is for the authorities in the national highways to apply such guidelines depending upon the ground realities.

6. We are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions.

Writ petitions are rejected.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

*pjk