- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.34625 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KUSUMALATHA M.J. W/O. LATE V. MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SRI NIKHIL M. S/O. LATE V.MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. SRI AKHIL M. S/O. LATE V. MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.526-C, ‘A’ BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560010. 4. SMT. HAMSA KUMARI W/O. B. CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, CH 5TH BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. 5. SMT. AMBIKA VENUGOPAL, W/O. B.N. VENUGOPAL, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KADIGANAHALLI BETTAHALASUR POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157. 6. SRI GANESH RAO S/O. ANAND RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT C/O. SRINIVASACHAR VIDYANAGAR CROSS, BETTAHALASUR POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562157. 7. SRI KANNALAH S/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157. 8. SRI HIRALAL S/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157. 9. SMT. PREMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 157. 10. SRI NANDAGOPAL REDDY S/O. K. KODANDARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.188/32/1, BASHYAM CIRCLE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3 & ARBITRATOR BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE-HYDERABAD NATIONAL HIGHWAY-7 NO.678/3, NEERU BHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBALA, BENGALURU-560 024. 3. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR SRI AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 IN LAQ/ARB/NH- 07/CR.117/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. This writ petition is filed calling in question the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure G) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners' claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation under the Provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short 'NH Act, 1956') was came to be rejected. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioners claimed to be the land losers in respect of the land bearing Survey No.11/1, measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, situated at Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (for short 'the land'). Respondent-authority has acquired the petitioners' land to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 an extent of 16900 sq. ft. for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.7. An award was passed in the year 2004 determining the compensation in respect of the acquired extent. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that similarly situated land losers, whose lands were acquired under the very same notification were subsequently granted enhanced compensation by the competent authority. On coming to know of such enhancement, the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 3G (5) of the NH Act, 1956 before respondent No.1. The said claim petition was rejected by a single page order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure-G). 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking without considering the material placed on record. No effective for reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to substantiate their claim for enhancement. The respondent No.1 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the NH Act, 1956, while exercising arbitrary jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to have their claim reconsidered particularly in light of the enhancement granted to similarly situated land losers. On these grounds, the petitioners seek setting aside of the impugned order and reconsideration of their claim petition. 8. This Court has carefully considered the contention and perused the impugned order. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 neither disclose any reasons nor does it indicate consideration of the petitioners' claim petition and supporting material. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 9. The impugned order reflects that the claim has been rejected without affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. In matter relating to determination of compensation, the authority exercising power under the NH Act, 1956 is required to follow the principles of natural justice. 10. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the matter to respondent No.1 for a fresh consideration without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim. Accordingly, this Court pass the following ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed in-part. ii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioners' claim petition dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure-D) after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53886 WP No. 34625 of 2025 iii) The petitioners are at liberty to file additional documents, if any, in support of their claim and thereafter, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17