Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. Vs Special Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 IN LAQ/ARB/NH07/CR.117/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶43

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶50

Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶51

This writ petition is filed calling in question the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure G) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners' claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation under the Provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short 'NH Act, 1956') was came to be rejected.

¶52

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶53

The petitioners claimed to be the land losers in respect of the land bearing Survey No.11/1, measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, situated at Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (for short 'the land'). Respondent-authority has acquired the petitioners' land to

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

an extent of 16900 sq. ft. for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.7. An award was passed in the year 2004 determining the compensation in respect of the acquired extent.

¶57

It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated land losers, whose lands were acquired under the very same notification were subsequently granted enhanced compensation by the competent authority. On coming to know of such enhancement, the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 3G (5) of the NH Act, 1956 before respondent No.1. The said claim petition was rejected by a single page order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure-G).

¶58

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking without considering the material placed on record. No effective for reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to substantiate their claim for enhancement. The respondent No.1 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the NH Act, 1956, while exercising arbitrary jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to have their claim reconsidered particularly in light of the enhancement granted to similarly situated land losers. On these grounds, the petitioners seek setting aside of the impugned order and reconsideration of their claim petition.

¶62

This Court has carefully considered the contention and perused the impugned order. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 neither disclose any reasons nor does it indicate consideration of the petitioners' claim petition and supporting material.

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The impugned order reflects that the claim has been rejected without affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. In matter relating to determination of compensation, the authority exercising power under the NH Act, 1956 is required to follow the principles of natural justice.

¶67

In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the matter to respondent No.1 for a fresh consideration without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

¶68

Accordingly, this Court pass the following

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) The writ petition is allowed in-part.

¶71

ii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioners' claim petition dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-D) after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

iii) The petitioners are at liberty to file additional documents, if any, in support of their claim and thereafter, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶76

iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶79

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. v. Special Deputy Commissioner - 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. v. Special Deputy Commissioner - 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M N Veerendrapatil Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Aecs Layout Welfare Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar a H Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayalakshmi N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt N Anusuyamma Vs Assistant Executive Engineer