- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3124 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. V. SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O LATE VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO.12, 10TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMU K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY MANAGER, TECH, BENGALURU, SY. NO.13, 14TH KM NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-TUMKUR ROAD (NH-4) BENGALURU - 560073 REP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI, PIU, BENGALURU. 2. THE ARBITRATOR AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - III BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT HYDERABAD-BENGALURU SECTION (NH-7) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 1ST FLOOR, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHAI HYDERABAD-BENGALURU SECTION (NH-7) SY. NO. 678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALORE - 560024 REPTD. BY THE SLAO …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADV., FOR R1 & R3; SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR, HCGP FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 19.12.2024 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-11) IN A.P.NO. 22/2023 VIDE AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-respondent No.1 in A.P.No.22/2023 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2024, by which, the application filed by the present petitioner for production of certain documents comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Ramu K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Shilpa Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri. Neelakantappa Pujar, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property as described in the Schedule. The issue relates acquisition by the National Highway Authority of India of the property of the petitioner, for formation of road and grant of compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 The petitioner aggrieved by the meagre compensation is said to be awarded by respondent No.2, on 30.03.2025, files a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner, the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter it is referred to as 'the Act' for short). The compensation is enhanced. 4. The National Highway Authority of India prefers an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the concerned Court. Before the Court, the primary argument advanced by the National Highway Authority of India, is that the Deputy Commissioner, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 3G(5) of the Act and therefore, the compensation so enhanced by the Arbitrator is non-est in the eye of law and inter alia. 5. The petitioner, respondent No.1 in the appeal proceedings files an application to produce certain documents i.e., the Government Orders and Circulars issued from time to time, conferring jurisdiction upon the Deputy Commissioner to entertain the dispute. The concerned Court rejects the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 application filed by the petitioner that those documents would not be required to decide the issue. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the preliminary submission advanced before the Appellate Court is that the Deputy Commissioner / Arbitrator, had no jurisdiction under Section 3G(5) of the Act to entertain the claim petition for enhancement of compensation. In that light, the petitioner had preferred an application seeking production of documents of the Government, either Union or the State, which had conferred jurisdiction upon the Deputy Commissioner to entertain the dispute. This could not have been rejected by the concerned Court, as it was to counter the submission of the National Highway Authority of India, the issue cuts at the jurisdictional issue. In that light, the order impugned, on the face of it, is erroneous. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 would submit that Section 34 of the of the Arbitration - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 and Conciliation Act, 1996, would mandate that no documents can be placed on record at that juncture. The submission would have become acceptable if the issue was anything other than jurisdiction. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, since the issue cuts at the root of the matter, I deem it appropriate to allow the application of the petitioner so filed. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the VI Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore City (CCH-11) in A.P.No.22/2023, stands quashed. (iii) Documents that the petitioner wanted to produce qua the application in I.A.No.1/2024, is allowed. (iv) The petitioner is permitted to place those documents before the concerned Court, in a manner known to law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18768 WP No. 3124 of 2025 (v) The concerned Court shall take on record the documents so produced by the petitioner through an application, in a manner known to law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14