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

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 07.08.2025 IN LAQ/ARB/NH07/CR.116/2024-25 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-G.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶36

for respondent No.1.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52984 WP No. 34907 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶42

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 an extent of 22 guntas 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.

¶43

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

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52984 WP No. 34907 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

rejected by a single page order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure-G).

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52984 WP No. 34907 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

aside of the impugned order and reconsideration of their claim petition.

¶52

This Court has carefully considered the

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:52984 WP No. 34907 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Accordingly, this Court pass the following

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The writ petition is allowed in-part.

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶68

PHM

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 R Murthi Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Heerabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhupendra Kumar Pokhama Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatachalapathi K M Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

M/S Yellamma Dasappa Medical College and Research Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka