Mr. N. B. Prabhakar Vs Assistant Commissioner and

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) GROUND FLOOR, PWD ANNEX, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶21

B.S. REKHA, W/O LATE N.B. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571432.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

¶25

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPENSATION AWARD NOTICE DATED 26.06.2024 BEARING NO. (L.A.Q.KSHIP3.C.R/2023-24) ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA (AS PER ANNEXURE-A).

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25729 WP No. 13313 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award notice bearing No.L.A.Q.KSHIP-3.C.R:/2023-24 dated 26.06.2024 issued by respondent No.1 to release the compensation in respect of acquisition of property bearing Assessment No.929/232 situate on Mysuru main road, Nagamangala town Mandya district.

¶32

(i) Briefly stated the facts of the case as pleaded,

¶33

are that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the children of late Mr. N.R.Basavaraju, while petitioner No.4 and respondent No.3 are the daughters-in-law of the said Mr. N.R.Basavaraju. They contend that Mr. N.R.Basavaraju was the owner of the property bearing Assessment No.929/232 situate on Mysuru main road, Nagamangala town, Mandya district. He passed away on 20.07.2011, while his wife predeceased him on 26.07.2009 and the spouse of petitioner No.4 and respondent No.3 have also passed away.

¶34

(ii) They contend that after the death of

¶35

Mr. N.R.Basavaraju, the property devolved upon all his legal representatives namely, the petitioners and respondent No.3.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25729 WP No. 13313 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

They contend that the aforesaid property was proposed for acquisition under Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, pursuant to which, a final notification was issued on 10.01.2014. Respondent No.1 issued an award notice dated 01.06.2024 quantifying the compensation payable at a sum of Rs.37,45,640/-.

¶39

(iii) On receipt of the notice dated 01.06.2024, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to respondent No.1 on 20.06.2024 stating that the petitioners were equally interested in the property. Likewise, respondent No.3 also submitted a representation dated 18.06.2024 stating that she was entitled for the compensation. Respondent No.1 who was bound to refer the dispute to the Civil Court, overlooked the same and entertained the representation of respondent No.3 dated 18.06.2024 and ordered release of the compensation in favour of respondent No.3. It is stated that the compensation was thereafter received by respondent No.3. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in releasing the compensation to respondent No.3, are before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.1.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:25729 WP No. 13313 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

(iv) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and respondent No.3 are entitled to equal share in the compensation determined by respondent No.1 and therefore the order passed by respondent No.1 releasing compensation in favour of respondent No.3 is liable to be set at nought. He also contends that the petitioners had filed O.S.No.70/2025 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala to set aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and the plaint in the said suit was rejected on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by respondent No.1. He therefore, contends that unless the petitioners challenge the order passed by respondent No.1, they would not be entitled to claim their share in the compensation determined by respondent No.1.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the contrary submitted that the compensation is now released to respondent No.3 and if the petitioners have any claim, they are bound to work out their remedy before the Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit against respondent No.3. He thus contends that the impugned

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25729 WP No. 13313 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be upset at this stage,

¶48

as the compensation is already released to respondent No.3.

¶49

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶50

counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶51

It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 being the legal representative of Mr. N.R.Basavaraju, has received the compensation in respect of the acquisition of the property bearing Assessment No.929/232. If the petitioners have any grievance or claim over the compensation received by respondent No.3, they are bound to work out their remedy before the Civil Court against respondent No.3. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 directing release of compensation to respondent No.3 cannot be upset, as the compensation is already received by respondent No.3 pursuant to the impugned order.

¶52

In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed . No indulgence can be shown to the petitioners in this writ petition. However, it is always open for the petitioners

¶53