- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33790 WP No. 5428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 5428 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 2ND FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OPP. ORION MALL, DR.RAJKUMAR RD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKARSH Y.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANU K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SANDEEP S/O. P. NAGARAJAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALII TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DTD. 04.09.2024 PASSED ON TWO IAS DTD. 12.03.2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 AND SECTION 151 OF CPC, FILED IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING LAC NO. 6/2022 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AS ANNX-A AND ETC,. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33790 WP No. 5428 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Akarsh Y.V., learned counsel appearing for Sri. Manu K., learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited challenging the order dated 04.09.2024 passed on the common I.A's dated 12.03.2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 in L.A.C.No.6/2022 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 3. The short issue involved is with regard to permitting the respondent to lead his evidence. 4. Sri. Akarsh Y.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the reference is under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for disbursement of compensation. The application filed earlier - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33790 WP No. 5428 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 to lead the evidence of the claimant was withdrawn by filing a memo. Subsequently, at a later stage, a similar application was filed, which the trial Court has allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when an application under Sections 30 and 31 for disbursement of compensation is pending, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 to reopen and lead further evidence of the claimant with regard to enhancement of compensation is not maintainable. It is submitted that the reference is not for enhancement of compensation. Hence, permission to lead evidence in respect of enhancement of compensation is impermissible. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The claim petition, no doubt, is filed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, on perusal of the averments, it is evident that the claim is essentially for enhancement of compensation. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33790 WP No. 5428 of 2025 withdrawal of the earlier application would not debar the claimant from filing a subsequent application seeking an opportunity to lead his evidence. The reference is of the year 2022. An application for recording evidence was filed in April 2023 and subsequently withdrawn in October 2023. Thereafter, a similar application was filed in March 2024, which has been allowed by the Trial Court. Having regard to the fact that the reference is of the year 2022, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court permitting the claimant to lead evidence is justifiable. Further, rejection of the application on technical grounds would prejudice the right of the claimant to seek adequate compensation in accordance with law, leaving him remediless. In the circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in extending the opportunity to the claimant to lead evidence. 7. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, as no ground is made out for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33790 WP No. 5428 of 2025 interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. The respondent shall avail the opportunity to lead his evidence at the earliest, without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14