Shivanand vs The Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur and The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Engineering Division

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 440 situated at Loni B.K. village, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District measuring 6 acres 25 guntas. According to him the respondents have illegally formed the road by utilizing a portion of the said property belonging to the petitioner without acquisition process. In other words, the petitioner alleges that the road is formed by the respondents without paying compensation to the petitioner as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession of the land is taken without following due procedure.

Learned Additional Government Advocate drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-C dated 13.02.2009 submits that the villagers are prohibiting the respondents from forming 7.50 meters width road; the existing road is having width of 2.50 to 3.00 meters only; since the villagers are prohibiting the respondents from widening the road, the Assistant Executive Engineer has instructed the Executive Engineer, Bijapur to take action in accordance with law. Subsequently nothing is available on record as to whether road is formed or not.

In case if the petitioner''s property is really taken over by the respondents for widening of the road without acquisition process, the petitioner will have to be compensated in accordance with law. However, incase if the petitioner''s property is not taken over by the respondents for widening of the road, there is no question of payment of compensation to the petitioner. The said question being the pure question of fact, the same cannot be gone into in this writ petition in the absence of material on record. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur is directed to verify as to whether the petitioner''s property is taken possession of by respondent No. 3 for widening of the road or not. Thereafter appropriate steps shall be taken. In case if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for claiming damages.

With these observations, petition stands disposed of.