Unlawful use of private land for roads requires statutory compensation or an equivalent alternative site.

The petitioner claimed that his father had purchased two parcels in Sy. No. 36, Block No. 1, Mullakere village, and that part of the land was later used by the Shimoga Urban Development Authority (SUDA) to form a 100-foot link road

SUDA issued an endorsement requiring the petitioner to execute a gift deed before his compensation claim would be considered

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought consideration of his request for compensation or an alternative site.

SUDA disputed his entitlement, relying, among other matters, on the absence of an approved layout and the petitioner’s delay in pursuing the claim

1. Whether SUDA could use the petitioner’s land for road formation without following the lawful acquisition process and without determining compensation

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the applicable land-acquisition law or, alternatively, an equivalent alternative site

The Court applied the principle that a public authority cannot take or use a citizen’s land without following the procedure prescribed by law, including lawful acquisition, determination of an award, and payment of compensation

It directed that compensation be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or, alternatively, that an equivalent site be allotted

The Court found that SUDA had used the petitioner’s land to form the road, while producing no material to establish that the land was subject to a requirement to relinquish land for roads or civic amenities

Since the authority had not shown that it issued the necessary notifications, passed an award, or otherwise took possession through lawful acquisition, it could not condition consideration of compensation on the petitioner executing a gift deed

The Court therefore held that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy—compensation under the 2013 Act or an equivalent alternative site

SUDA was directed to determine and pay compensation under the 2013 Act for the portion of the petitioner’s land used for the 100-foot link road or, alternatively, allot an alternative site equivalent to the site lost.

Compliance was required within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order