- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 14955 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MANGALURU - 575 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS COUNCIL SECRETARY NAVEEN JOSEPH A. 2. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OFFICES LALBHAG, MANGALURU - 575 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ANAND C.L. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRIDHAR H, ADV.) AND: 1. MR. LOUIS FERNANDES S/O LATE JOHN FERNANDES AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NEERALA HOUSE NEAR VAMANJOOR CHURCH GONDANTHILA POST MANGALURU - 575 029. 2. SHRI RAJENDRA BHAT S/O LATE MADHAVA BHAT AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MANDARA HOUSE KUDLUPU VILLAGE MANGALURU - 575 003 AND NOW R/AT 8/346 Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 MANDARA HOUSE MANDURU BEKURU VILLAGE JODUKALLU POST - 671 322. MAJESHWARA TALUK KASARAGODU DISTRICT, KERALA. 3. SMT. VANAJA R BHAT WIDOW OF LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. KUM. ANUSHA D/O LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 5. MASTER ANIRUDH S/O LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS. 3, 4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT MANDARA HOUSE R/AT MANDARA HOUSE, KUDLUPU VILLAGE MANGALURU - 575 003 AND NOW R/AT FLAT NO.404 INLAND MAJESTIC, WAREHOUSE ROAD MANNAGUDDA MANGALURU - 575 003 DAKSHINA KANNADA. 6. SHRI RAJESH BHAT S/O LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT MANDARA HOUSE KUDLUPU VILLAGE MANGALURU - 575 003. NOW R/AT MUDU KONAJE VILLAGE P.O. PADU KONAJE MUDABIDARE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 213. 7. SHRI RAGHURAM BHAT S/O LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT "MANDARA HOUSE" KUDLUPU VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 MANGALURU - 575 003. AND NOW R/AT ALABE HOUSE MANCHI VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK - 574 323 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 8. SHRI RAVINDRA BHAT S/O LATE RAMESH BHAT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT "MANDARA HOUSE" KUDLUPU VILLAGE MANGALURU - 575 003 AND NOW R/AT MADHAVA KRUPA MANDENJIRABAIL, PUNKEDADY TODAR VILLAGE, MIJAR POST - 574 225 MUDABIDARE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-H THE COMMON ORDER DTD 18.3.2023 IN I.A. NO. II, III AND IV (ANNEXURE-B, C AND D) L A C 31/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN SO FAR AS ORDER OF SUMMONING OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONERS AND APPOINTMENT OF THE R-8 AS AGENT OF R-1 AS PER ANNX-H ORDER DTD 18.3.2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 18.03.2023 passed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 on I.A.No.II to IV in LAC No.031/2007 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. 2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. L.A.C.No.31/2007 was filed by respondents herein for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them under the land acquisition proceedings. Respondent no.1 herein had filed three applications in LAC No.31/2007 pending on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. I.A.No.II was filed under Order XIV Rules 6 and 7 of CPC to summon the original records of land acquisition proceedings in LAQ.CR.95/2017-10116/B-1-0 and E3/Nayovi/CR 52/2016-17 pertaining to 10.08 acres of land in Survey No.57 of Kudupu Village from the petitioner no.2 herein and I.A.No.III was filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for permitting respondent no.1/claimant no.1 to appoint Claimant no.7 as his agent to act on his behalf and prosecute the claim petition in LAC No.31/2007. IA No.IV was filed under Order XIV Rules 6 and 7 of CPC to summon the original records of land acquisition proceedings in LAQ.SR.7/2003-04, Award No.3/04-05 dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 01.01.2005 and LAQ.SR.8/2004-05, Award No.5/05-06 dated 01.01.2005 from the custody of respondent no.1. The said applications were opposed by the petitioners herein by filing objection and the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangaluru, DK, vide order dated 18.03.2023 had allowed the aforesaid three applications and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the records which are summoned under I.A.no.II and IV are voluminous records and entire records are not required for the purpose of adjudicating the claim of claimant no.1. He submits that it is only claimant no.1, who had sought reference in time, for enhancement of compensation. The claim made by other claimants are all time barred and therefore reference in LAC No.31/2007 is only valid insofar as it relates to the claim of claimant no.1. For extraneous reasons, claimant no.1 has now appointed claimant no.7 as his agent with an intention to reopen the entire case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the lands belonging to claimant nos.1 to 7 were acquired for the purpose of 'ADB' project by the petitioners herein and an award was passed relating to the lands which were acquired. Reference was made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of compensation and in the said proceeding, no claim statement was filed. Therefore, claim petition was dismissed and being aggrieved by the same, claimant nos.1 to 7 had approached this Court in MFA No.46/2016(LAC). This Court had allowed the said appeal and it was observed that for the adjacent lands which were acquired for the same project under the award dated 01.01.2005, compensation of Rs.13.75 lakhs per acre was awarded and for the lands pertaining to claimant nos.1 to 7 which were also acquired for the same project under the award dated 30.10.2006, compensation of Rs.5,92,600/- was awarded to them. It was noticed that the award was a consent award and it is under these circumstances the order of dismissal of the claim petition in LAC. No.31/2007 dated 31.08.2015 was set-aside and the matter was remitted to the jurisdictional Court for re- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 consideration. Thereafter, the present applications were filed by the claimants. 6. The material on record would go to show that the document which are now sought to be summoned under application I.A.nos.II and IV relates to acquisition of adjacent lands in respect of which higher compensation has been paid under award dated 01.01.2005, as observed in the order passed by this Court in MFA No.46/2016(LAC). Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.nos.II and IV, wherein documents relating to acquisition proceedings of adjacent lands are summoned. If the petitioners have a grievance that the production of entire records relating to the acquisition proceedings is not necessary and relevant documents for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute involved in this case would be sufficient, then it is for the petitioners to file necessary application before the trial Court stating the particulars of documents which they intend to produce before the reference Court that would be sufficient for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the present case. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 7. Insofar as the challenge to the order passed on I.A.No.IV is concerned, the material on record would go to show that claimant no.1 is a senior citizen and he has pleaded that, because of his age he is not in position to appear before the Court and prosecute his case. The claim of claimant no.1 is pending before the reference Court for the last about 18 years. If the claimant no.7 is appointed as agent of claimant no.1 the same will not cause any hardship to the petitioners and the apprehension by petitioners that the same is likely to expand the scope of reference is misconceived and ill-founded. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the reference court. 8. According the following :- ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the trial Court giving particulars of the documents which they intend to produce for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41550 WP No. 14955 of 2023 purpose of adjudication of dispute involved in the case on hand and if such an application is filed, the trial Court after hearing all the parties concerned shall pass appropriate orders on the same. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32