- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10552 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: KALPANA PALEGAR W/O. PRASAD PALEGAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. NO.22, 8TH CROSS KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMOGHA R. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, (CENTRAL) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO.678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU- 560 024. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. UNNIKRISHNAN, CGC FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.LAQ/NH-44 (OLD NO.7) RTI/11/2024-25 DATED 03.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PAY THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF THE RS.39,55,67,673/- (RUPEES THIRTY NINE CRORES, FIFTY FIVE LAKHS, SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE ONLY) WHICH INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND 15 PERCENT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION AS CALCULATED BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS LETTER DATED 25.02.2025 AT ANNEXURE-T BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS TARSEM SINGH CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.LAQ/NH-44 (Old No.7)/RTI/11/2024-25 dated 03.08.2024 issued by respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.39,55,67,673/- including additional amount under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1894' for short) along with interest as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, 1894. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 03 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.117/3 (old No.79) of Shettigere Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, part of which, measuring 51182 sq.ft. was acquired by respondent No.2 for construction of National Highway-7. An award was passed by respondent No.2 and a sum of Rs.6,72,53,148/- was determined as compensation. The petitioner filed an application before the Arbitrator under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for payment of enhanced compensation. (ii) The Arbitrator was pleased to enhance the compensation at a sum of Rs.1,311/- per sq.ft and interest at 9% p.a. in addition to the compensation paid to the petitioner as per the order dated 13.12.2010. The petitioner claims that respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 09.12.2023 to respondent No.2 seeking approval of the Arbitration awards. Thereafter, arbitration award notice was sent to the petitioner calculating the amount payable to the petitioner at a sum of Rs.14,06,92,239/-. The petitioner was called upon to furnish documents as mentioned in the arbitration award notice. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 regarding payment of interest till the date of disbursement of the award. The said representation was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted RTI application seeking information about the delay in payment of compensation as per the award dated 03.07.2023. (iii) The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 03.08.2024 stating that a litigation was filed by one Ajay - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 Rajendra and Ashwin Rajendra as to who the real owner of the land in question was and therefore, there was a delay in paying the compensation. The petitioner then addressed a letter dated 06.08.2024 to respondent No.2 to provide documents pertaining to the litigation purportedly launched by Ajay Rajendra and Ashwin Rajendra. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 16.08.2024 stating that the dispute is only with regard to Sy.No.117/1 and not in respect of Sy.No.117/3. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.2 regarding disbursement of correct compensation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, which mandate the payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act, 1894 together with interest at 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years from the date of taking possession which amounted to Rs.39,55,67,673/-. (iv) The petitioner being aggrieved by the delay in disbursement of the enhanced compensation as per the award passed by the Arbitrator and the failure on the part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 respondents to pay additional amount and solatium and interest as stated above has filed this petition. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to additional market value, solatium as declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh referred supra. He therefore, contends that the award which did not consider grant of additional market value and solatium has to be revisited and a supplementary award is to be passed by respondent No.2. He also contends that the possession of the property was taken over on 27.11.2011 and though the award passed on 13.12.2010, the award amount is not paid and hence, the petitioner is entitled to interest as prescribed under Section 24 of the Act, 1894. (ii) He also contends that since there is no dispute regarding land in Sy.No.117/3 and dispute is essentially in respect of Sy.No.117/1, there no impediment for the respondent No.2 to release the compensation in favour of the petitioner. 4. The Writ Petition is opposed by the respondents, who have filed an elaborate statement of objections. It is stated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 inter alia that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh was sought to be clarified in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021, which was rejected. The order passed in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 was sought to be reviewed in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528/2025, which was disposed of on 25.03.2026. Therefore, it is contended that the entitlement, if any, of the petitioner for solatium and interest shall be in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Review Petitions referred supra. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above submissions and submitted that a direction could be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Review Petition (Civil) No.2528/2025. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Review Petition (Civil) No.2528/2025, in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 and in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019. The same - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33624 WP No. 10552 of 2025 shall be considered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, if an award is passed, the compensation shall be deposited before this Court, subject to the outcome of the Public Interest Litigation. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ/BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31