Facts of the Case

  • The Petitioner, Yamuna M.K. (aged 60 years), is the owner of an ancestral/residential property situated at Bylakuppe Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District.
  • The Respondents, comprising the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and its Special Land Acquisition Officer, initiated acquisition proceedings for the construction/widening of National Highway 275 (NH-275, Mysore Region, Madikeri Division).
  • During the implementation of the project, the Respondents executed heavy civil construction works and dug deep trenches in the immediate neighboring lands.
  • Consequently, while the surrounding properties were fully acquired and taken possession of, the petitioner’s land and structural house were isolated, sustaining structural distress, specifically major cracks and damage to the main load-bearing wall, creating an imminent risk of collapse.
  • Furthermore, the competent acquisition authority sought to deduct Goods and Services Tax (GST) directly from the structural valuation and the total compensation packet determined for the acquired property.
  • Aggrieved by the structural threat and the proposed tax deductions, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka under Article 227, seeking a Mandamus for total acquisition, timely compensation distribution, and a complete restriction on GST deductions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be maintained to compel the National Highway Authority of India to acquire the remnant portions of an individual's land and disperse compensation within a judicially monitored time frame.
  2. Whether the Respondents possess the legal mandate and authority to deduct GST on the structure valuation and the final compensation payable to a landowner for compulsory land acquisition.
  3. Whether a petitioner can conditionally withdraw a Writ Petition while safely reserving the right and liberty to challenge tax deductions and seek enhancement of compensation before the appropriate statutory Appellate Authority.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Karumbaiah T.A., strongly contended that the ongoing civil engineering operations and heavy excavation work by NHAI on adjacent plots had compromised the structural integrity of the petitioner's dwelling, causing severe damage to the main wall.
  • It was argued that leaving the petitioner's house stranded amid heavy construction zone hazards while acquiring all surrounding areas was highly discriminatory and physically unsafe.
  • The petitioner vigorously opposed the deduction of GST on structural valuation, asserting that compulsory acquisition of land and attached properties does not constitute a "supply of service or goods" under the active framework of GST laws, making any tax deduction from the compensation fundamentally illegal.
  • Due to the escalating safety hazards to the residential structure, the petitioner submitted a formal "Memo for Withdrawal" dated June 1, 2026, requesting permission to accept the current compensation under protest, while explicitly demanding absolute liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for valuation enhancement and legal redressal against the GST deduction.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Respondents, represented by the National Highway Authority of India and its legal counsel Sri. S. Sudharsan, stood by the statutory acquisition processes laid down for the NH-275 infrastructure project.
  • While they did not raise major resistance to the factual assertions regarding the physical condition of the site, they maintained that compensation assessments and tax treatments conform to their standard operating guidelines for public infrastructure developments.
  • The respondents raised no structural objections to the petitioner’s formal intent to withdraw the writ, provided the standard legal course for statutory reference and appellate relief is systematically followed rather than seeking parallel remedies under writ jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Single-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, took up the matter for preliminary hearing in the 'B' Group.
  • The Court carefully perused the signed "Memo for Withdrawal" submitted by the petitioner's counsel, highlighting the structural damages to the main wall and the strategic decision to claim the awarded compensation under protest.
  • The Hon’ble Court fully accepted the conditions of the withdrawal memo and the verbal submissions made by the petitioner's legal counsel.
  • Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, but significantly granted and reserved absolute liberty to the petitioner to legally pursue the enhancement of her compensation and contest the validity of the GST deduction before the statutory Appellate Authority.

Important Clarification

  • Preservation of Appellate Remedies upon Writ Withdrawal: The judgment establishes a vital procedural precedent that withdrawing a Writ Petition due to emergency external circumstances (such as imminent property collapse) does not extinguish a citizen's right to challenge arbitrary financial actions like GST deductions on land acquisition.
  • Landowners can accept the primary compensation "under protest" and legitimately move the competent statutory Appellate Authority for both fiscal corrections and valuation enhancements, provided the High Court explicitly grants such liberty.

Section Involved

  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by the High Court).
  • Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 (Challenged in respect of tax deduction on structure valuation and compensation).
  • National Highways Act, 1956 (Implied under NHAI acquisition proceedings for project NH-275). 

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783062907_344compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.