[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Deputy General Manager vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                                       WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                                   C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                                       WP No. 200083 of 2026
                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                         WRIT PETITION NO.204181 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)
                                            C/W
                         WRIT PETITION NO.204159 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)
                         WRIT PETITION NO.200083 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)

                   IN WP NO.204181/2025:

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH.)
                   AND PROJECT DIRECTOR,
                   NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
                   PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT - RAICHUR,
                   HAVING OFFICE AT:
                   PLOT NO. 37, "D" BLOCK,
                   KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA          BOLMANDODDI ROAD,
Location: HIGH     NEAR YEGANOOR TEMPLE,
COURT OF           RAICHUR-584 103.
KARNATAKA
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. SRUTI C., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS
                        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                        REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                        M.S. BUILDING,
                        BANGALORE-560 001.

                   2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                      WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                  C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                      WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




     RAICHUR DISTRICT,
     BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY,
     RAICHUR-584 101.

3.   THE ARBITRATOR (NH-748A)
     AND ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     RAICHUR,
     BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY,
     RAICHUR-584 101.

4.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     NHAI, 1ST FLOOR, ANUSHA COMPLEX,
     OPPOSITE TO NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
     MANTRALAYA ROAD,
     RAICHUR-584 103.

5.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
     NHAI, DC COMPLEX, NAVANAGAR,
     BAGALKOT-587 103.

6.   SHRI. PAMPANAGOUDA
     S/O PARVATHAREDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     RESIDENT OF
     MALLAT VILLAGE,
     SIRAVAR TALUK,
     RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 129.

7.   SHRI. CHANNABASANAGOUDA
     S/O MALLANAGOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE.

8.   SHRI. SHIVARAJA
     S/O MALLANAGOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
     RESPONDENT NOS.7&8
     RESIDENTS OF:
                          -3-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                   WP No. 204181 of 2025
                               C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                   WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




   MALLAT VILLAGE,
   SIRAVAR TALUK,
   RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 129.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE   A   WRIT   IN   THE  NATURE   OF  CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE  THE   CONVERSION    ORDER
BEARING NO.401018 DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A.
II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE  THE   CONVERSION    ORDER
BEARING NO.409122 DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A1.
III) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE  THE   CONVERSION    ORDER
BEARING NO.401013 DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A2.
IV) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE  THE   CONVERSION    ORDER
BEARING NO.401011 DATED 21.09.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A3.
V) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE  THE   CONVERSION    ORDER
BEARING NO.409124 DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A4.
VI) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING     ASIDE   THE   IMPUGNED    AWARD
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.SLAO/NHAI/BGK/NH-748A/2022-
23/ AWARD-30 DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.5 IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN SY.NOS.110, 169/1, 46,
36, 47/1 SITUATED IN MALLAT VILLAGE AND HOBLI SIRAVAR
TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
ANNEXURE-B. VII) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED RESPONDENT
NO.3 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.LAQ/NH/125, 124, 123,
                           -4-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                    WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                    WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




122 AND 120/2023-24 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-
E.

IN WP NO.204159/2025:

BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH.)
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-RAICHUR,
HAVING OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO.37, 'D' BLOCK,
KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR,
BOLMANDODDI ROAD,
NEAR YEGANOOR TEMPLE,
RAICHUR-584 103.
                                         ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT. SRUTI C., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     RAICHUR DISTRICT,
     BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY,
     RAICHUR-584 101.

3.   THE ARBITRATOR
     (NH-748A) AND ADDITIONAL
     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR,
     BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY
     RAICHUR-584 101.
                            -5-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                     WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                 C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                     WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




4.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     NHAI, 1ST FLOOR, ANUSHA COMPLEX,
     OPPOSITE TO NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
     MANTRALAYA ROAD,
     RAICHUR-584 103.

5.   SHRI. CHANNAGOUDA
     S/O ADANAGOUDA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
     SHRI. SHIVARAJ
     S/O P. RUDRAGOUDA,
     RESIDING AT
     H. NO. 6-1-2981/12, KUSHTAGI ROAD,
     NEAR KUDALASANGAM TALKIES,
     KHB COLONY, SINDHANUR - 56.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)


 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
A    WRIT    IN   THE     NATURE   OF    CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING-ASIDE THE CONVERSION ORDER
BEARING NO.415028 DATED 21.11.2022 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-
C (II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ARBITRAL
AWARD DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. LAQ/NH/121/2023-24/736
PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-D

IN WP NO.200083/2026:

BETWEEN:

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH.)
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR,
                            -6-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                     WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                 C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                     WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-RAICHUR,
HAVING OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.37, 'D' BLOCK,
KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR,
BOLMANDODDI ROAD,
NEAR YEGANOOR TEMPLE,
RAICHUR-584 103.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRUTI C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     RAICHUR DISTRICT, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY,
     RAICHUR-584 101.

3.   THE ARBITRATOR (NH-748A) AND ADDITIONAL
     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR,
     BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
     SAATH KUTCHERY,
     RAICHUR-584 101.

4.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     NHAI, 1ST FLOOR, ANUSHA COMPLEX,
     OPPOSITE TO NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
     MANTRALAYA ROAD,
     RAICHUR-584 103.

5.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
     NHAI, DC COMPLEX,
     NAVANAGAR,
                                -7-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                         WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                     C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                         WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




     BAGALKOT-587 103.

6.   SHRI. CHANNABASANAGOUDA
     S/O MALLANAGOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     RESIDENT OF MALLAT VILLAGE
     SIRAVAR TALUK
     RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 129.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING       ASIDE   THE      CONVERSION     ORDER
BEARING    NO.415026    DATED        21.11.2022   PASSED    BY
RESPONDENT NO.2, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-
C B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING/SETTING       ASIDE   THE     IMPUGNED     ARBITRAL
AWARD DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
IN    PROCEEDINGS      BEARING         NO.LAQ/NH/121       AND
126/2023-24/737 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-D.



      THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                                 -8-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:877
                                          WP No. 204181 of 2025
                                      C/W WP No. 204159 of 2025
                                          WP No. 200083 of 2026
HC-KAR




                           ORAL ORDER

These petitions are filed by the petitioner, who is the

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

2. The Writ Petition No.204181/2025 is filed

seeking to quash the conversion orders dated 07.10.2022

bearing No.401018, 27.10.2022 bearing No.409122,

07.10.2022 bearing No.401013, 21.09.2022 bearing

No.401011 and 27.10.2022 bearing No.409124, vide

Annexures - A1 to A4 respectively, passed by respondent

No.2/the Deputy Commissioner, quash/set aside the

award proceedings dated 05.07.2023 bearing

No.SLAO/NHAI/BGK/NH-748A/2022-23/AWARD-30, vide

Annexure-B, passed by respondent No.5/the Special Land

Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority for Land

Acquisition, NHAI and to set aside the arbitral award dated

29.01.2025 bearing No.LAQ/NH/125, 124, 123,

122&120/2023-24/789, vide Annexure-E, passed by

respondent No.3/the Arbitrator and the Additional Deputy

Commissioner.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

3. The Writ Petition No.204159/2025 is filed

seeking to quash the conversion order dated 21.11.2022

bearing No.415028 passed by respondent No.2, vide

Annexure-C and to set aside the arbitral award dated

29.01.2025 bearing No.LAQ/NH/121&126/2023-24/736

vide Annexure-D, passed by respondent No.3.

4. The Writ Petition No.200083/2026 is filed

seeking to quash the conversion order dated 21.11.2022

bearing No.415026 passed by respondent No.2, vide

Annexure-C and to set aside the arbitral award dated

29.01.2025 bearing No.LAQ/NH/121&126/2023-24/737

vide Annexure-D, passed by respondent No.3.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel

Smt. Sruti C., for the petitioner that the Government of

India through its Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

issued notification bearing number S.O. 20 (E) under

Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short,

'the Act of 1956') on 04.01.2022, appointing respondent

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

No.4 as a competent authority for acquisition of lands for

the project. She further contends that on 23.08.2022, vide

notification bearing number 3954(E), respondent No.5 was

appointed in the place of respondent No.4 as the

competent authority. Learned counsel further contends

that on the very next day i.e., on 24.08.2022, respondent

Nos.6 to 8 in Writ Petition No.204181/2025 applied for

conversion of their lands bearing Sy.Nos.110, 46 and 36

respectively for commercial use.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel

that on 21.09.2022 within less than a month of the

application made, respondent No.2 without following the

proper procedure prescribed under the law, granted

conversion of the land in Survey No.36 for commercial

use. Thereafter, on 28.09.2022, respondent Nos.6 and 7

applied for conversion of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.169/1

and 47/1 respectively for commercial use. It is further

contended by the learned counsel that again in less than a

month without following the proper procedure, respondent

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

No.2 granted conversion of the lands in Survey Nos.110

and 46 for commercial-agro-based industries use on

07.10.2022 and the lands bearing Sy.Nos.169/1 and 47/1

for commercial use on 27.10.2022.

7. It is further contended that despite conversion

orders having been granted less than a month before

preliminary Notification but after the project itself had

been notified, respondent No.5 assessed the nature of the

lands acquired from respondent Nos.6 to 8 as undeveloped

commercial lands and determined the market value of the

same as Rs.254/- per square meters in Writ Petition

No.204181/2025 and Rs.141/- per square meters in Writ

Petition Nos.204159/2025 and 200083/2026 and

accordingly compensation were awarded for the acquired

lands. The said compensation awards came to be

disbursed to respondent Nos.6 to 8 in Writ Petition

No.204181/2025, respondent No.5 in Writ Petition

Nos.204159/2025 and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

200083/2026 and the award proceedings came to be

passed on 05.07.2023.

8. It is further contended that being aggrieved by

the compensation awarded, the above said respondent

preferred claims under Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956

before respondent No.3. In the claim petitions so filed by

the respondents, it was contended that the petitioner

applied for sanction of the layout from the office of the

Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning Office,

Raichur only on 24.11.2022 i.e., after the date of

preliminary Notification. It is also contended that on

account of acquisition Notification, plan sanction was not

obtained and the claimants were unable to develop the

lands.

9. Learned counsel further contends that as per

the conversion orders, respondent Nos.6 to 8, made

applications for conversion only after the notification

issued on 04.01.2022 under Section 3(a) of the Act of

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

1956. It is further contended that arbitral awards came to

be passed on 29.01.2025.

10. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the

conversion orders, award proceedings and arbitral awards

are all without jurisdiction, arbitrary, perverse and

amounts to subversion of the rule of law. It is further

contended that the impugned conversion orders passed by

respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction as it has been

passed after the issuance of notification under Section

3(a) of the Act of 1956, so also without following due

process of law. The learned counsel further contends that

it is apparently clear that the urgency in which the

conversion orders have been passed within less than a

month of the application having been made without

following due process and procedure of law and no 'NOC'

has been obtained from NHAI or from the State PWD, the

entire process of conversion orders and the awards are

liable to be set aside. It is also contended by the counsel

that the awards passed on the basis of the said conversion

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

orders were in less than one month prior to the date of the

preliminary Notification determines the fraud played with

collusion and nexus of the authorities. It is contended that

respondent No.3 ought to have noticed that the claim of

the lands having been converted for commercial use is not

established in the light of the conversion having been

granted swiftly in less than one month from the date of

preliminary Notification.

11. Learned counsel further contends that

respondent No.3 has failed to apply his mind to the facts

and circumstances, the impugned conversion orders bars

the development of the lands within 40 meters of the

center of ROW of State Highway/National Highway. It is

further contended that respondent No.3 could not have

treated the lands as developed commercial lands in the

absence of any sanction plan from the competent

authority or in the absence of proof of any development of

the lands. Therefore, she contends that the entire

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

determination of the value of the so-called developed

lands are arbitrary without any basis.

12. Learned counsel further contends that merely

because arbitral petitions filed by the petitioner are

rejected on the ground of they being barred by limitation,

the same will not deprive the petitioner from challenging

the conversion orders made in a hasty manner with

deliberate intent to make unlawful gain. In support of her

case, she has placed reliance on the following judgments;

i. Ranvir Singh and Another Vs Union of

India [(2005) 12 SCC 59] &

ii. Meghmala and Others Vs G. Narasimha

Reddy and Others [(2010) 8 SCC 383]

13. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Patil

appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 vehemently contends

that at the outset, the present petitions would not be

maintainable either in law or on facts and the same

deserve to be dismissed without delving further on merits.

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

He further contends that the petitioner suppressing the

material facts has approached this Court without clean

hands, thereby it is an abuse of process of law. Learned

counsel further contends that the challenge is made by the

petitioner to the orders of conversion and the challenge to

the arbitral awards in these petitions, which again is not

sustainable. He further contends that the petitioner is

having no locus standi to challenge the orders of

conversion by contending that the aforesaid lands are

adjacent to the village and there are commercial

development surrounding the lands. It is also contended

that the lands are having NA potentiality, the same were

converted on 21.09.2022, 07.10.2022 and 27.10.2020. He

also denies that the orders of conversions passed without

following due process of law and takes up a contention

that the orders passed under Section 95 of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act are amenable to challenge before the

Tribunal under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

Revenue Act, on this ground also, the present petitions are

liable to be dismissed.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents further

contends that the impugned arbitral awards dated

29.01.2025 were already challenged by the petitioner by

way of Arbitration Petition Nos.28/2025 and 29/2025

under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Principal

District Judge, Raichur. The Arbitration Petitions came to

be dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2025 as barred by

the law of limitation. Therefore, he contends that the

petitioner having failed under Section 34 of the Act of

1996, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the same is

impermissible. Learned counsel further contends that

upon dismissal of the arbitration petitions filed under

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the petitioner has not

bothered to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of

1996.

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

15. It is also contended that the petitioner filed the

present petitions only with a mala fide intent to avoid

deposit of compensation in the execution petitions pending

before the Principal District Judge, Raichur. Therefore, he

contends that to circumvent all these statutory bars of

limitation and the consequences of not having been

successful, the present writ petitions are filed which is

expressly prohibited by settled law in catena of judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel inter alia

further contends that there is no illegality in the arbitral

awards, so also in the conversion orders passed by

respondent No.2. If at all the petitioner has any grievance

with regard to dismissal of the arbitral petitions, the same

would have to be challenged in the manner known to law

under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. Having not done so,

the present petitions are not maintainable.

16. Learned counsel further contends that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deep Industries

Limited Vs. ONGC Limited [(2020) 15 SCC 706] has

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

deprecated the interference under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India of those matters governed under

the Act of 1996 and held that the Court must be extremely

circumspect in entertaining the petition under writ

jurisdiction, as the same cannot be used as a substitute

for statutory remedies. He also placed reliance on the

judgment of Sterling Industries Vs. Jayprakash

Associates Limited and Others [(2021) 18 SCC 367],

wherein it is held that "since such an application was not

tenable, we fail to understand how in a writ petition filed

against an order made by District Judge in an un-tenable

application the High court could have set aside partial

award". Learned counsel in support of his case has also

relied upon the following judgments;

i. SBP & Co. Vs Patel Engineering Limited

[(2005) 8 SCC 618];

ii. Bhaven Construction Vs Executive Engineer

[(2021) 2 SCC 793];

- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

iii. P. Radha Bai Vs P. Ashok Kumar [(2019)

13 SCC 445];

iv. NHAI Vs M. Hakeem [(2021) 9 SCC 1];

v. Executive Engineer, KPWD Vs B.R. Keshava

Murthy [ILR 2020 KAR 1563];

vi. Chief Engineer, PWD Vs RNS Infrastructure

Ltd. [(2019) SCC OnLine Kar 2656];

vii. Sree Balaji Developers Vs State of

Karnataka [2021 SCC OnLine KAr 1847] &

viii. NHAI Vs Sri H. Muniyappa [2023 SCC

OnLine Kar 4211].

17. Therefore, he contends that on the basis of

these judgments and the facts and circumstances of the

case, when the petitioner having failed to challenge the

dismissal order under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the

present petitions would not survive for consideration, the

same are liable to be dismissed.

- 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

18. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, the point that arises for consideration is as to

whether the present petitions are maintainable.

19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is now

questioning the conversion orders passed by respondent

No.2, and the arbitral awards. Apparently, when the

petitioner was not successful in challenging the arbitral

awards before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Raichur and having not filed an appeal as contemplated

under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, now trying to

challenge the awards and the conversion orders, in my

humble opinion would not be sustainable, so also the

petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the arbitral

awards would not be maintainable before this Court in writ

jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sterling

Industries (supra) at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 held as

under:

- 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

"2. Since such an application was not tenable, we fail to understand how in a writ petition filed against an order made by the District Judge in an untenable application, the High Court could have set aside the partial award. This is clearly contrary to law.

3. This Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg.

Ltd. in para 45 held as follows:

"45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the Arbitral Tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal is, after all, a creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice

- 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the Arbitral Tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible."

20. In the case of National Highways Authority

of India Vs Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Others [(2022)

16 SCC 391], the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph

Nos.11 and 12 held as under:

"11. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent executing court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert itself to the executing court and

- 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court.

12. We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent executing court."

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Navayuga Engineering Company Vs Bangalore Metro

Rail Corporation Limited [2021 SCC OnLine SC 469]

at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as under:

"4. Despite this Court repeatedly referring to Section 5 of the Arbitration Act in particular and the Arbitration Act in general and despite this Court having laid down-in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (2020) 15 SCC 706 that the High Court under Article 226 and 227 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with orders passed under the Arbitration

- 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

Act, such interference being only in cases of exceptional rarity or cases which are stated to be patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction, we find that High Courts are interfering with deposit orders that have been made. This is not a case of exceptional rarity or of any patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.

5. This being the case, the impugned order of the High Court of Karnataka is set aside and that of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is restored. The deposit of 60% and security for the remainder is to be made within four weeks from the date of our order."

So also in the case of Electrosteel Castings Limited

Vs UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited &

Ors., [(2022) 2 SCC 573] the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at paragraph Nos.7.2 and 7.3 held as under:

"7.2 However, it is required to be noted that except the words used 'fraud'/'fraudulent' there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the fraud'. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words 'fraud'/'fraudulent' without any specific particulars with respect to the fraud', the plaintiff-appellant herein intends to get out of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act

- 26 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

and wants the suit to be maintainable. As per the settled preposition of law mere mentioning and using the word 'fraud'/'fraudulent' is not sufficient to satisfy the test of fraud'. As per the settled preposition of law such a pleading/using the word 'fraud'/'fraudulent' without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of 'fraud'. In case of Bishundeo Narain and Anr. (Supra) in para 28, it is observed and held as under:-

".... Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6. Rule 4. Civil Procedure Code."

7.3 Similar view has been expressed in the case of Ladli Parshad Jaiswal (Supra) and after considering the decision of the Privy Council in

- 27 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

Bharat Dharma Syndicate vs. Harish Chandra (64 IA 146), it is held that a litigant who prefers allegation of fraud or other improper conduct must place on record precise and specific details of these charges. Even as per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, particulars shall be stated in the pleading. Similarly in the case of K.C Sharma & Company (Supra) it is held that 'fraud' has to be pleaded with necessary particulars. In the case of Ram Singh and Ors. (Supra), it is observed and held by this Court that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit is barred by law of limitation."

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Serosoft

Solutions Private Limited Vs. Dexter Capital Advisors

Private Limited [2025 INSC 26] at paragraph Nos.14 to

16 held as under:

"14. In any event of the matter when the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 09.10.2024

- 28 -

                                                            NC: 2026:KHC-K:877



HC-KAR




     held          'that        far            and         no         further'
     respondent/claimant's                 endeavour             to     cross-

examine RW-1, the High Court should have restrained itself from interfering. In order to justify its interference and extension of time, the High Court has referred to and relied on a judgment of the same Court. Certain conditions for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 are mentioned in the judgment. Conditions (v) and (vi) of the said judgment could have provided sufficient guidance for the High Court to consider whether interference is warranted or not. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-

"(v) Interference is permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. the perversity must stare in the face.

(vi) High Courts ought to discourage litigation which necessarily interfere with the arbitral process.

(vii) Excessive judicial interference in the arbitral process is not encouraged.

(viii) It is prudent not to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

- 29 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

(ix) The power should be exercised in 'exceptional rarity' or if there is 'bad faith' which is shown.

(x) Efficiency of the arbitral process ought not to be allowed to diminish and hence interdicting the arbitral process should be completely avoided."

15. It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.' Condition (vi) to (x) underscores the reason why High Courts ought not to interfere with orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals for more than one reason.

16. We looked into the other parts to see if the High Court has in fact found any perversity in the decision of the Tribunal. We found none. The High Court has not bothered to indicate under what circumstances the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse. All that the High Court has said is that cross-examination is one of the most valuable and effective means of discovering the truth. This is a normative statement, and

- 30 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:877

HC-KAR

nobody disputes the said principle. The only enquiry required was whether there is denial of opportunity for an effective cross-examination of the witness. There is absolutely no discretion about this aspect of the matter, except to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as an exceptional circumstance as well, the request of the respondent/claimant is excessive.

23. Having heard the learned counsel for both the

parties and having considered the judgments relied by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the

respondents and the judgments relied by this Court, it is

apparently seen that the present petitions in whatsoever

manner would not be maintainable, as the petitioner would

not be entitled to maintain the writ petitions under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when it has

already suffered an order under Section 34 of the Act of

1996. Hence, the present writ petitions are not

maintainable as these are barred by law, so also the

present writ petitions cannot be entertained to consider