Karnataka HC Rejects Landowners’ Bid To Move Nala From Middle Of Their Plots, Citing Its Natural Course And Completed Adjoining Works

The petitioners claimed ownership of lands in Survey Nos. 217/6, 217/10, 217/11 and 217/12 at Bagalakote.

A portion of Survey No. 217 was notified for acquisition under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for construction of the Kerodi Nala.

The petitioners objected that the proposed alignment passed through the middle of their land, dividing it and diminishing the utility of the remaining area.

They sought realignment along the western side.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected their request on 19 March 2025, after which they petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking reconsideration, a revised map, and certiorari against the preliminary notification insofar as it affected their lands.

The Authority maintained that the proposed alignment followed the nala’s natural course and that construction had been completed up to the boundaries of the petitioners’ property on either side.

Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was the statutory basis for the preliminary acquisition notification.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to seek judicial review and directions against the authorities.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the authorities’ technical assessment that the requested realignment would depart from the nala’s natural course and was impractical and unscientific; the judgment cites no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court considered the petitioners’ proposed alternative alignment and the Authority’s position that the nala followed its natural course through the relevant survey numbers.

It accepted the Authority’s assessment that the petitioners’ proposal would require a deviation from that course and was impractical and unscientific.

It also noted that construction had already reached the boundaries of the petitioners’ property on both sides.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to intervene or direct realignment.

The petitioners were granted no relief; the judgment did not separately set out an analysis of the requested challenge to the preliminary notification.