Land acquisition

IN BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.760/2 situated at Kusugal Village, Hubballi Taluk, measuring 4 Acres 14 Guntas, was acquired for National Highway project in 2010-2011. Prior to acquisition, the land had already been converted into Non-Agricultural (NA) land vide DC Conversion Order dated 25-02-2010 and commercial development approval dated 18-03-2010 for proposed Resort, Residential School and Petrol Pump projects. Despite submission of objections under Section 3C of NH Act along with several representations and documents, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLO) passed award in 2011 treating the land as agricultural land without conducting proper survey. The petitioner continuously pursued the matter and the authorities themselves stated in 2014 that Arbitrator would be appointed, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.106509/2023. By order dated 10-07-2025, the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s representations and determine compensation. Pursuant to the High Court direction, for the first time in 2025, the authorities conducted survey and admitted that part of the acquired land measuring about 1 Acre 30 Guntas is Non-Agricultural land. This clearly establishes that the original award passed in 2011 was based on wrong classification of land. The petitioner submitted detailed representation consisting of more than 150 pages along with supporting documents, guideline values, commercial approvals and Supreme Court judgments including Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka (2025). However, the impugned order dated 20-11-2025 was passed without considering the said documents and without assigning proper reasons. The order is therefore a non-speaking order. The impugned order was passed on the very same day when contempt notice was served upon the authority, which clearly indicates mechanical exercise of power and non-application of mind. The acquisition has divided the remaining land into three triangular and unusable fragments causing severe severance loss and complete destruction of commercial utility of the remaining land. The petitioner has not accepted the compensation amount till date because the compensation was determined by wrongly treating valuable commercial/NA land as agricultural land. The petitioner seeks: 1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 20-11-2025; 2. Fresh determination of compensation treating the land as Non-Agricultural/commercial land; 3. Application of principles under LARR Act, 2013 including solatium and statutory benefits; 4. Severance compensation; 5. Interest under Section 28 from the date of acquisition till payment. The petitioner specifically relies upon: 1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Karnataka (2025) 2. Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma (2018) 8 SCC 485 (Para 24) 3. Atma Singh v. State of Haryana 4. Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. 5. Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda