Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1980 (KAR)

B. J. Mahadevaswamy v. State of Karnataka

2025-12-18

K.S.HEMALEKHA

body2025
ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are owners of the properties abutting the main road at Belakavadi Village, Malvalli Taluk, Mandya District, assailing the price fixation dated 03.07.2024, fixing compensation at Rs.1,008/- per square foot for lands proposed to be obtained for road widening from kilometer 61.420 to kilometer 61.87, and the consequential communications issued pursuant thereto. The petitioners seek quashing of the said price fixation and a direction to the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act 2013’ for short) 2. Heard Sri Maheshchandra B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned AAG Sri H.V. Banuprakash for the respondent-State and Sri M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned price fixation dated 03.07.2024 is arbitrary and illegal and that the objections raised by the petitioners have not been considered. It is urged that no social impact assessment or consent process has been undertaken and the issuance of undated communication, calling upon the petitioners to execute sale deeds amounts to coercion, violating Articles 300A of the Constitution. It is further contended that mere discussion in meetings cannot be treated as a consideration of the objection in the eye of law and therefore, the entire process stands vitiated. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the project is being implemented through a policy of direct purchase which is voluntary in nature and not through compulsory acquisition. It is contended that the price of Rs.1,008/- per square foot has been fixed strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 31.05.2016, based on guidance value, sale statistics, application of multiplier and solatium. It is further submitted that substantial number of landowners have voluntarily accepted compensation and executed sale deeds, and no possession has been taken forcibly from the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 submits that they are only implementing and supervisory authorities and have no independent role in price fixation. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether the objections of the petitioners have been considered by the respondents in accordance with law? ii. Whether the impugned price fixation dated 03.07.2024 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?” 7. Both the points have been taken up for consideration together. 8. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: “i. Whether the objections of the petitioners have been considered by the respondents in accordance with law? ii. Whether the impugned price fixation dated 03.07.2024 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?” 7. Both the points have been taken up for consideration together. 8. Though the respondents contend that the objections were discussed in the meeting, no material been placed on record to demonstrate that the objections raised by the petitioners were duly considered and disposed of by a reasoned order. Mere discussion or explanation of the valuation methodology in a meeting does not amount to consideration in the eye of law. The record discloses that the respondents have proceeded under the direct purchase policy, which is voluntary in nature. The impugned price fixation is traceable to a recognized valuation methodology under a valid Government order. 9. Importantly, it is not in dispute that the several land owners have already accepted compensation and executed the sale deeds. Interference with the impugned price fixation at this stage would unsettle the completed transaction and affect third party rights, which is impermissible. Further, the petitioners have not established any case of forcible dispossession or demolition. The defect pointed out is namely the non- consideration of the objection, which is procedural and curable, does not warrant quashing of the entire process. Without interfering with or disturbing any sale deeds already executed or compensation already paid to other landowners pursuant to the direct purchase policy, the writ petitions are disposed of and points framed for consideration is answered accordingly. 10. The respondents are directed to consider the objections/representation of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. Until such consideration, the respondents shall not take coercive steps against the petitioners.