THIMMAKKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to resort to the proposed widening of the road and consequent demolition of the shops of the petitioners constructed in the petition schedule property, except by due process of law.

(2.) Heard learned counsel Sri.N.Nanjunda Swamy for petitioners; Sri.Shivakumar, learned CGC for respondent No.1 and Smt.Shilpa Shah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land along with structures bearing Khaneshumari No.187/2 of Doddabelavangala Village, Doddaballapura Taluk. It is submitted that, father of the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 had constructed shops in the schedule property and let out the same to the tenants. The respondent-National Highway Authority of India issued notification under S.O.2925(E) dtd. 30/12/2011 under Sec. 3(ii) and Sec. 3A(i) of the National Highway Act, 1956 notifying that it is intending to acquire lands specified in the schedule annexed to the said notification for building, maintenance, management and operation of NH No.207 (new NH No.648) on the stretch of land from Hosakote to Sompura sec. of Bangalore Rural District. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners' land in Khaneshumari No.187/2 to an extent of 67 Sq.Mtrs was not acquired and no compensation is paid. Without acquiring and without compensation being paid, the respondent-authorities are utilizing the land of the petitioners for formation as well as widening National Highway. It is submitted that respondent-authorities have not initiated acquisition proceedings under National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "1956 Act") to acquire the land in question, belonging to the petitioners. It is submitted that without notice and without any authority of law, the respondent-authorities started measuring and marking the properties for the purpose of widening the road and the petitioners were informed that the respondents would proceed to demolish the properties. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be entitled for appropriate compensation, if the petitioners' land is utilized for the purpose for formation of National Highway. Further, he submits that the petitioners have no objection for widening of the road, however, the petitioners have serious objection for widening the road without following due process of law. Thus, he prays for a direction to the respondent- authorities not to utilize the petitioners' land without following due process of law.