- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37603 OF 2014 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 10841 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) IN WP No. 37603/2014 BETWEEN: 1. VARADARAYA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE P.RAMANANTH SHENOY R/AT NO.3-10-808, KANDETTU ROAD, BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575005 2. NAGESH SHENOY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE P.RAMANANTH SHENOY R/AT NO.3-10-808, KANDETTU ROAD, BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575005 3. NARASIMHA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE P.RAMANANTH SHENOY R/AT NO.3-10-808, KANDETTU ROAD, BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575005 4. PRABHAKAR SHENOY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE P.RAMANANTH SHENOY R/AT NO.3-10-808, KANDETTU ROAD, BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575005 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGH WAY NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD, CONNECTIVITY PROJECT, N.H.13 17 AND 18, BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT-575010 2. DR.PRAVEEN KUMAR SUVARNA DIED ON 06.07.2017 HENCE ROUNDED OFF IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS (RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5) WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD 3. MRS. LATHA SUVARNA, ADULT, W/O DR.PRAVEEN SUVARNA 4. RITHIN SUVARNA ADULT, S/O DR.PRAVEEN SUVARNA 5. NITHIN SUVARNA ADULT, S/O DR.PRAVEEN SUVARNA RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT AROGHYA SOUDHA, I FLOOR NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, KULSHEKAR, MANGALORE-575005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASAD K.R. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. SUHAS C.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2021, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER NO.N.H.AL.A.QSR10:05-06/119 DATED 16.12.2008 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 10841/2016 BETWEEN: VARADARAYA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE P. RAMANANTH SHENOY R/AT NO.3-10-808, KANDETTU ROAD BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE-575005 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) (REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575001 3. ASST. COMMISSIONER MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE-575001 4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR PADAVU VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE-575001 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 5. PRAVEEN KUMAR SUVARNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 5(a) NITHIN SUVARNA S/O LATE PRAVEEN SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, "SANAA", MANJUSHA LAYOUT, KADRI TEMPLE NEW ROAD, MANGALORE-575004. 5(b) RITHIN SUVARNA S/O LATE PRAVEEN SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O "TREESHA" BEHIND KORDABBU STHANA, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ADMN. OFFICE, NEAR PUMPWELL CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575002 5(c) MRS. LATHA SUVARNA, W/O LATE PRAVEEN SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O "TREESHA" NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ADMN. OFFICE, NEAR PUMPWELL CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575002 ALSO RESIDING AT NAGAPPA COMPOUND ATTAVARA, MANGALORE-575002 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SUHAS C.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5(a) TO 5(c) CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.11.2023) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER NO.C.DIS.RAP.160/14-15 (STATED AS N.C.DIS.RAP.160/14-15 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 18.08.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN C.D.S R.R.T.S.R 190/2006-07 DATED 23.07.2007 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN B.DIS.R.R.T 302:00-01 DATED 17.02.2003 AT ANNEXURES-A, B AND B1 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER IN W.P. NO.37603/2014 The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No. ಎ.ೆ.ಎ.ಎ.ಕೂ ಎಆ 10:05-06/119 dated 16.12.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 determining the objections filed by the petitioners against releasing the compensation in respect of the acquisition of 101 Square Meter (0.02.50 acre) in the land bearing Sy. No.64/1 situate in Padavu village, Mangaluru Taluk, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 in favour of the respondent No.2 since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to refer their objections for consideration before the Civil Court under sub-Section (4) of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the N.H. Act') and also to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to re-deposit the compensation amount of Rs.16,65,000/- which is withdrawn by them. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded in the writ petition are that, the grandfather of the petitioners – Mr. Lingappa Shanbag was the Mulgenidar of 12 cents of land in Sy. No.64/1 of Padavu village, Mangalore Taluk under Mr. Manjunatha Shanbag, who was the Mulidhar as per a registered instrument dated 24.07.1890. Petitioners contend that one Mr.Harishanbag, the grandson of late Mr.Manjunatha Shanbag, mortgaged the right to collect the rent of the property bearing Sy. No.64/1 measuring 12 Cents to the Town Co-operative Bank, Mangalore vide mortgage deed dated 10.06.1936. Later in 1939, the Town Co-operative Bank, Mangalore auctioned the right to collect the rent of the property bearing Sy. No.64/1, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 which was purchased by Mr.Janardhan Shanbag in Court auction. In 1943, Mr.Janardhan Shanbag transferred the right to collect the rent to Mr.Umanath Suvarana, the father of the respondent No.2, vide sale deed bearing No.1428 of 1943. The petitioners contend that their grandfather had executed a Will dated 09.07.1946 bequeathing the Mulgeni right in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 64/1 to his two sons and two grandsons. As per the aforestated testament, 11 cents in the property bearing Sy. No.64/1 fell to the share of the second son i.e. Mr.Ramanath Shenoy, the father of the petitioners and another 01 cent fell to the share of his grandsons, namely, Mr. Pundalika Shenoy and Mr.Venkatesh Shenoy. The petitioners contend that their predecessors were paying the Mulageni to the father of the respondent No.2. They contended that the land in Sy. No.64/1 was acquired for the purpose of widening the road. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 had purportedly created documents and got their names entered in the revenue records in respect of the entire 12 cents of land in Sy. No. 64/1 by deleting the name of the father of the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 and Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. thereafter filed a suit in O.S No.4/2009 inter alia for a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 declaration that they are the mulgenidars of the suit schedule property i.e. land bearing Sy. No.64/1 measuring 12 cents situate in Padavu Village, Mangalore Taluk, and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their possession in respect of the said property. They also filed a private complaint against the respondents for manipulating and destroying the revenue records, before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangalore, in PCR No.73/2013 and the Trial Court by order dated 21.10.2013, referred the matter to the Police Sub-Inspector, Mangalore East Police Station as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to investigate and submit a report. Thereafter, in terms of the order dated 01.09.2016, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 5 therein and a case was registered in C.C No.296/2016. The petitioners contend that out of the total extent of land bearing Sy. No.64/1, 2½ cents of land was acquired for the purposes of widening the road and compensation was determined. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 on the strength of fraudulent documents, made a claim before the respondent No.1 to receive the compensation for 2½ cents of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 land acquired by the respondent No.1. The petitioners on getting the news of the claim of the respondent Nos.2 to 5, filed an application on 29.10.2007 before the respondent No.1 claiming compensation. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the respondent No.1 rejected their application on the ground that they did not justify their claim to receive the compensation and consequently, passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners and ordered for disbursement of compensation to the respondent No.2. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court in this petition. IN W.P. NO.10841/2016 4. The petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. ..ಆ .ಆ . 302:00-01 dated 17.02.2003 passed by the respondent No.4 - Deputy Tahasildar by which the name of Mr. Pundalika Shenoy as Anubhogadar in respect of the land measuring 0-01 acre in Sy. No.64-1 of Padavu Village, Mangaluru A Hobli, Mangaluru Taluk, and the name of Mr. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 Kogga Shetti in respect of land in Sy. No.64-2 of Padavu Village were ordered to be deleted from pahani and the names of: (i)Smt. Leela Suvarna, wife of Mr.Umanath Suvarna; (ii) Mr. Basanti Harishchandra; (iii) Dr.Praveen Kumar Suvarna (deceased respondent No.5) and (iv) Dr. Mohanchandra Suvarna were ordered to be entered in the revenue records to seem as if the respondent No.5 was the owner of the land measuring 0-12 acre in Sy. No.64-1 and 0-01 acre in Sy. No.64/1 of the said Paduvu Village. They have also challenged the order bearing No. : ಆ ಆ .. ಎಆ :190/2006-07 dated 23.07.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and the order bearing No...ಆ .ಎ.160/14-15 dated 18.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, confirming the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar. 5. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.4 therein to change the entries in the revenue records by entering his name and names of his brothers and sisters as per the Will bearing registration No.49/1946 and the Mulgeni deed No.1180/1890 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 and issue a fresh RTC within a reasonable period of time or to restore the khata as it stood prior to the order dated 17.02.2003. 6. The petitioner asserted the facts stated in W.P No.37603/2014 and claimed that Smt. Leela Suvarna, the mother of the respondent No.5, had managed to manipulate the revenue authorities and get her name entered in the revenue records and thereafter in receiving the compensation payable in respect of 2 ½ cents of land in Survey No. 64/1. He contends that the order dated 17.02.2003 passed by the Deputy Tahasildar was then challenged unsuccessfully in appeal No.:ಆ ಆ ..ಎಆ :190/2006-07 before the respondent No.3 and thereafter, before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No. ..ಆ .ಎ.160/14-15. In the meanwhile, a suit in O.S No.4/2009 was filed by the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. for a declaration that the petitioner and his predecessors were the mulgenidars of the land in question and for consequential permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant No.3 therein from paying the compensation amount for the portion of the land acquired from out of the plaint - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 schedule property and to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the orders dated 17.02.2003, 23.07.2007 and 18.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in both these petitions submitted that once an objection was raised regarding the entitlement of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 to receive the compensation, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 in W.P No.37603/2024 - Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the same to the Civil Court for adjudication as provided under Section 3H(4) of the N.H. Act. He contends that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had unauthorisedly and illegally received the compensation payable in respect of 2½ cents of land in Sy. No.64/1 and therefore, they are bound to be directed to re-deposit the compensation. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 and for respondent No.5(a) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 to 5(c) in W.P No.10841/2016 submitted that the suit in O.S No.4/2009 filed by the petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014 and one Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. for a declaration that they are the mulgenidars of the suit schedule property i.e. land bearing Sy. No.64/1 measuring 12 cents of Padavu village and for consequential relief of prohibitory injunction was dismissed in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, dated 23.04.2021. He contends that an appeal is now filed by the petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014 and Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. in R.A No.80/2021 and the same is pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangaluru. He, therefore, submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had rightly decided the objections and rightly held that the petitioner(s) are not entitled to receive the compensation. He contends that the authority of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner(s) and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 can be traced to Section 3H(3) of the N.H. Act and therefore, there is no error committed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 determining the dispute between the petitioner(s) and the respondent Nos.3 to 5. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014 - Special Land Acquisition Officer reiterated the above submissions and submitted that unlike Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the power to decide objections is conferred upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3H(3) of the N.H. Act and therefore, the respondent No.1 was well within his Authority to determine the objections filed by the petitioner(s). He, therefore, contends that there is no need to interfere with the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Besides this, he contends that since the suit filed in O.S. No.4/2009 is already dismissed, the question of directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to go into the very same question would be a futile exercise. He, therefore, prays that the petitions be dismissed and liberty be reserved to the petitioners to claim reliefs in R.A No. 80/2021, which is pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangaluru. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State reiterated the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in these petitions and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 and for respondent No.5(a) to 5(c) in W.P No.10841/2016 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 12. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 have undoubtedly received the compensation payable in respect of 2½ cents of land in Sy. No. 64/1 of Paduvu Village, which was acquired by the Union of India for the purposes of widening a National Highway. The petitioner(s), who claim title in respect of the land so acquired, raised objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer contending that they are the owners of the land bearing No.64/1 and that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 have no right to receive the compensation. They, therefore, called upon the Special Land - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 Acquisition Officer to prevail upon the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to re-deposit the compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer voiced the adjudication of the dispute purportedly in exercise of the powers under Section 3H(3) of the N.H. Act. In order to understand the power of the Spl.LAO to adjudicate the dispute, it is necessary to refer to Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 which reads as follows: "3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. (5) Where the amount determined under Section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent. per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof. (6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit." 13. Section 3H(3) of the N.H. Act applies “Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section(1)”, the competent Authority has to determine the persons who are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. This would arise when the persons who claim to be interested have some semblance of right in the property that is acquired. Under Section 3H(4) of the N.H. Act, if there is any - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 dispute as to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority is bound to refer the dispute to the decision of the Civil Court. In the instant case, while the petitioner(s) claim that they are the mulgenidars of the land in question and that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P No.37603/2014 are only entitled to receive the rent from the petitioners and therefore, were not entitled to receive the compensation, this was beyond the comprehension of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and he was bound to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Civil Court as provided under 3H(4) of the N.H. Act and could not have adjudicated the objections by referring to Section 3H(3) of the N.H. Act. In that view of the matter, the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which is impugned in W.P No.37603/2014 is faulty and deserves to be interfered with. However, one fact that has to be borne in mind is that the compensation is already received by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P No.37603/2014 and the dispute raised by the petitioner(s) before the Special Land Acquisition Officer has now reached the Civil Court in O.S No.4/2009 which is adjudicated and decided against the petitioner No.1 in W.P. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 No.37603/2014 / petitioner in W.P. No.10841/2016 and Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. Therefore, unless the petitioners establish their right in R.A No.80/2021, which is pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., they would not be entitled to call upon the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.37603/2014 to re-deposit the compensation or compel the Special Land Acquisition Officer to prevail upon the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to re-deposit the compensation. This reasoning would also apply to the challenge made by the petitioners to the respective orders impugned in W.P. No.10841/2016 passed by the Deputy Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. If ultimately the petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.37603/2014 / petitioner in W.P. No.10841/2016 and Mr. Prakash Shenoy P. succeed in R.A No.80/2021, the orders dated 17.02.2003, 23.07.2007 and 18.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively, would stand effaced and the rights of the petitioner(s) in these petitions would stand restored. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 14. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) W.P No.37603/2014 is disposed off reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the respondent No.1 - Special Land Acquisition Officer after a decision is rendered in R.A No. 80/2021, which is pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangaluru. If the petitioners approach the Special Land Acquisition Officer, then he/she shall call upon the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to re- deposit the compensation received and proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. (ii) W.P. No.10841/2016 stands disposed off holding that the impugned orders dated 17.02.2003, 23.07.2007 and 18.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Mangaluru Taluk, Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-Division, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, and the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, respectively, shall be subject to the outcome of R.A No.80/2021, which is pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27688 WP No. 37603 of 2014 C/W WP No. 10841 of 2016 Mangaluru. It is made clear that if the petitioner succeeds in R.A No.80/2021, then his name and the name of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in W.P No.37603/2014 shall be restored in the revenue records in respect of the land in question in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2