VISHWANATHA TANTRY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 62731 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
VISHWANATHA TANTRY
S/O KRISHNA LAXMI NARAYANA TANTRY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AWT H.NO.7-48, ANANTHA NIKETHANA,
BALAJI LAY-OUT, KANNARPADY,
KADEKAR VILLAGE, UDUPI-576103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJU BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
AMBEDKAR ROAD,
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
ISPRL PIPE LINE PROJECT, KIADB,
BYKAMPADY, MANGALORE-575011.
3. INDIAN STRATEGIC TO PETROLEUM RESERVE LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PROJECT OFFICER,
PADUR PROJECT SITE, PADUR,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-575011.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI. C.A.AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT);
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
MS. SOWMYA LAKSHMI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3
(ABSENT))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ND
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 RESPONDENT DATED 02.12.2016 ISSUED
IN NO.ISPRL/KIADB/LAQ/SR/3/2006-07/225 DIRECTING THE
ND
PETITIONER TO REFUND A SUM OF RS.1,52,000/- IN FAVOUR OF 2
RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEVIATE
FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN/SKETCH. AN ORIGINAL OFFICE COPY OF
SAID PROCEEDINGS IS HEREBY MARKED AND PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent
No.2 in case No.ISPRL/KIADB/LAQ/SR/3/2006-07/225 and the
order dated 02.12.2016 passed therein directing him to refund
a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-.
2. (i) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the
owner of land in Sy.Nos.142/P1, 143/1P1, 107/13 situated at
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
Padur Village, Udupi Taluk and District. A notification under
Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 was issued by
the Government of India on 19.07.2013 followed by a
notification dated 09.12.2013 to acquire portion of the land
belonging to the petitioner, measuring 6 cents in Sy.No.142/P1,
25 cents in Sy.No.143/1P1 and 4 cents in Sy.No.107/13 of
Padur Village. After the acquisition, the respondents assessed
the market value of the acquired land and paid compensation.
The respondents also prepared a sketch for laying the pipeline.
Later, when the respondents was trying to excavate the land to
lay the pipeline, they faced hard rock which obstructed the
work. Thereafter, the respondents deviated from the original
sketch and excavated the adjacent portion of the land which
was not acquired. The petitioner objected to the same. The
respondents thereafter issued notice to the petitioner and held
out that they would not deviate from the original sketch. The
petitioner claims that the respondents have not complied with
the sketch but have installed the pipeline in an area that is not
acquired. However, the respondent No.2 thereafter issued the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
impugned endorsement/order calling upon the petitioner to
refund a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the excess
compensation received by him.
(ii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
endorsement/order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
what was acquired was 35 cents of land in the aforesaid three
survey numbers and if the respondents have deviated from the
original plan and have entered into a property which is not
acquired, they cannot compel the petitioner to refund a sum of
Rs.1,52,000/-. He contends that while laying the pipeline, the
respondents have excavated the land and therefore, it is
difficult for the petitioner to identify the area which is not
utilized in the aforesaid three survey numbers. He contends
that the land excavated earlier has lost its utility and that the
same would be of no use to the petitioner. He contends that the
petitioner cannot lay any building or plant any trees in the
excavated portion of the land. He thus contends that the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
respondents cannot compel the petitioner to refund a sum of
Rs.1,52,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and
the learned counsel for respondent No.3 are absent and
therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of their
submissions.
5. Be that as it may, it is evident from the award
passed that 35 cents of the land in Sy.Nos.142/P1, 143/1P1
and 107/13 was acquired and compensation of Rs.7,09,800/-
was determined and paid. It also appears that thereafter the
respondents have deviated the sketch as they confronted hard
rock while excavating and thereafter laid the pipe. It is not
known whether such a deviation resulted in entering into
unacquired portion of the land. Be that as it may, respondents
have claimed that 27.5 cents of land was used up for laying the
pipeline and therefore, the petitioner has to refund a sum of
Rs.1,52,000/- being the excess compensation received.
However, without there being a clear demarcation as to where
exactly the respondents have utilized the land belonging to the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
petitioner, it cannot be construed that 7.5 cents of land is left
to the use of petitioner. Further, in view of the deep excavation
of 0.35 cents of land, the land would be deteriorated and would
not be fit for agriculture. It is relevant to note that under the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in
Land) Act, 1962, the petitioner is not entitled to construct any
building or plant deep rooted plants anywhere near the
pipeline. The petitioner is bound to maintain a buffer from the
pipeline and hence, the respondents cannot compel the
petitioner to refund the compensation received by him. In that
view of the matter, the impugned endorsement/order issued by
the respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to refund a sum
of Rs.1,52,000/- is liable to be interfered with.
allowed
6. Accordingly, the petition is . The impugned
endorsement/order dated 02.12.2016 issued by the respondent
No.2 in case No.ISPRL/KIADB/LAQ/SR/3/2006-07/225 in so far
as it relates to calling upon the petitioner to refund a sum of
Rs.1,52,000/- is quashed. It is open for the respondent Nos.2
and 3 to make use of 35 cents of land that was acquired in
Sy.Nos.142/P1, 143/1P1 and 107/13 of Padur village, Udupi
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56380
WP No. 62731 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010147112016
Taluk and District, as per the notifications of the Government of
India dated 19.07.2013 and 09.12.2013 and the petitioner shall
not in any manner obstruct the respondents from doing so.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39