- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13641 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. ATHIKHA, W/O. MHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT 2-102/4, PONNELA HOUSE, ADDOOR VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK-574145. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. M A AHAMED BAVA, S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT 2-100/2, SHIFA COTTAGE, PONNELA HOUSE, ADDOOR VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU TALUK – 574 145. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF STATE - PWD, DOOR NO.3-29, BETHEL, THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL, NH-66, MANGALURU - 575 005. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISATION OFFICER, NH-169, SHIVAMOGA - MANGALORE SECTION, MANGALURU. 3. THE ARBITRATOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D K DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIDAN CHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2024 PASSED IN NO.C.DIS.ARB(4) NH LAQ.CR.08/2022-23 ON THE FILE OF ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION TO THE 3rd RESPONDENT TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON MERITS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO HAVE HER SAY IN THE MATTER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-the land loser seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Bidan Chandran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Spoorthy Hegde N, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows. (a) On 26.08.2020, the respondent-National Highway Authority of India issues a notification for acquisition of land for the purpose of widening of National Highway 169. The property of the petitioner also fell within the ambit of such widening of the road. The land of the petitioner was thus acquired and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 road widened and compensation determined for such acquisition. (b) The petitioner then files an application under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner cum Arbitrator on 30.3.2022. Notice is issued to the petitioner on 17.09.2022 and after issuance of notice, the petitioner appears before the Deputy Commissioner on 28.09.2022. The appearance is recorded. (c) The matter was then posted to 8.11.2022 and after 8.11.2022, it is the allegation of the petitioner that there was no notice about any proceeding and the Deputy Commissioner rejects the application seeking enhancement of the compensation. The rejection of the application comes about on 24.01.2024. This is said to be communicated to the petitioner on 03.02.2024, which the petitioner has not received as the notice of the order was sent to the advocate representing the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner and not to the petitioner himself. Therefore, the petitioner is not even aware of what has happened. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 (d) The averment in the petition is that it is only later the petitioner comes to know that the application seeking enhancement of compensation has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, files the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.S.Rajasekhar would contend that the certified copy of the order sheet is secured and is placed as Annexure. The order sheet would not reveal any proceeding that has happened. Therefore, there is neither notice to the petitioner, of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, nor the order of the Deputy Commissioner has communicated to the petitioner. He would thus submit that there is blatant violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Bidan Chandran appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would seek to justify the order on the ground that the petitioner did have notice. Even otherwise, it is his submission that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has to file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the petition should not be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 entertained. He would even otherwise submit that the petitioner did not appear on 08.11.2022. Therefore, the proceedings stood closed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Rajashekar would now join issue to contend that if the Court would direct filing of a Section 34 petition, limitation of 120 days would kick in, and the petition would not even become entertainable, in the light of the fact that there was no proceeding worth the name held by the Arbitrator. The petitioner cannot be driven to a remedy under section 34 only to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The aforesaid facts linked in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner stood acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening of NH-169 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 the compensation was determined which the petitioner sought for enhancement under Section 3-G(5) of the Act before the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner and the Arbitrator. The application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 30.03.2022. 9. What happens thereon is found in the original records. The records would reveal the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 10. There is only a solitary order sheet maintained by the office of the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the entire proceeding. The said order sheet depicts that application was filed on 30.03.2022, notice was issued on the application on 17.09.2022 and both the parties were present before the Deputy Commissioner on 28.09.2022. The matter was directed to be listed on 08.11.2022. On 08.11.2022, there is no proceeding recorded. The paper is blank. The next proceeding is on 23.01.2024, the date on which the impugned order is passed, which is impugned in the subject petition. 11. Therefore, this Court directed production of original records maintained before the Deputy Commissioner concerning the issue. The records are produced. The records would reveal nothing more than what is handed over to the petitioner as certified copies. They are the same. The only other document that is found in the original record is the communication of the impugned order to the advocate representing the petitioner, which is on 03.02.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order did not reach the doors of the petitioner at all. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 12. In the light of the said submissions, whether this Court would reject the petition directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a petition under Section 34, the answer would be an unequivocal and emphatic "no", for the reason that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is on the face of it arbitrary and such arbitrariness on the foundation of violation of principles of natural justice would not lead to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the National Highways to drive the petitioner to a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 13. It is convenient for the respondent-National Highways to contend that Section 34 should be availed of by the petitioner only to go before the Section 34 proceeding and contend that it is beyond limitation. Therefore, order of the Deputy Commissioner, must be obliterated. The obliteration of the order would only lead to the application being revived before the Deputy Commissioner. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 14. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner all over again, right from its inception and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [i] Writ Petition is allowed. [ii] Order dated 24.01.2024 passed in No.C.DIS.ARB(4) NH LAQ.CR.08/2022-23 on the file of Arbitrator (N.H) and Deputy Commissioner, D.K. District, Mangaluru, vide Annexure-A, stands quashed. [iii] The application is restored on the file of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall now hear the petitioner or hear the parties to the lis and pass necessary orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30206 WP No. 13641 of 2025 [iv] Since all the parties are now represented, I deem it appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 29.09.2025 at 3 p.m. [v] The proceedings shall conclude within 12 weeks from 29.09.2025 in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20