Allowed¶10

Ashadhar Baburao Magdum Thr Sanmati Ashadhar Magdum v. Ld Arbitrtor Sole National Highway Acquisition Sangli Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2026WP/11772/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 3G(5) National Highways Act 1956; land acquisition compensation arbitration (Arbitration/SR/11/2023 and 12/2023, Sangli); Article 300A constitutional right to property; hyper technical approach rejected; writ petition allowed, Rule made absolute; Arbitrator to reconsider condonation application on merits; respondents State and NHAI (Project Director, Kolhapur); Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh; decided 21 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only; Rule made absolute in those terms; Arbitrator directed to decide the Section 3G(5) application on its own merit in accordance with law. ¶10

Ashadhar Baburao Magdum Thr Sanmati Ashadhar Magdum vs Ld Arbitrtor Sole National Highway Acquisition Sangli Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 31/07/2025 of the Arbitrator, National Highway Acquisition Sangli, rejecting the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay should be set aside so that the Petitioner may challenge the Award on merits. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Given the peculiar circumstances and considering the right of the Petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to challenge the Award on merit and the same cannot be defeated by adopting a hyper technical approach.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the application presented by the Petitioner indicates there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Application.

¶9

Key takeaways

No prejudice would be caused to the Respondents by allowing the Petition.ratio¶9
The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the Award in relation to the acquired property, has the right to challenge the Award before the appropriate Authority.ratio¶8
The Arbitrator shall decide the Application under Section 3G(5) of the said Act on its own merit, in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Sachin S. Deshmukh, J. — Writ Petition No. 11772 of 2025, decided 21 April 2026. Petitioner's land was acquired pursuant to notification dated 17/11/2017 and an Award was passed; a protest letter dated 12/03/2020 led to referral for arbitration. The Application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Arbitration/SR/11/2023 and 12/2023), filed on 10/11/2023 with an application for condonation of delay, was rejected by the Arbitrator's order dated 31/07/2025 — the impugned order. Held: (i) perusal of the application discloses sufficient cause for the delay; (ii) considering the Petitioner's right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to challenge the Award on merit, which cannot be defeated by a hyper technical approach, and no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents; (iii) the Petitioner has the right to challenge the Award before the appropriate Authority. Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only; Rule made absolute; Arbitrator to decide the Section 3G(5) application on its own merit in accordance with law.

¶1

22-WP-11772-2025 (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2025

¶3

Ashadhar Baburao Magdum Thr Sanmati Ashadhar Magdum VERSUS

¶4

Ld Arbitrator Sole National Highway Acquisition Sangli Others

¶5

Mr. Shubham Dhenge a/w Ms. Ankita Mali, advocate for Petitioner Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar AGP for the State Mr. J. P. Patil, advocate for Respondent No. 3-NHAI

¶6

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 21^st APRIL, 2026.

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to delete Respondent No. 1 at his own risk and peril. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶9

IRESH MASHAL

¶10

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.04.27 11:32:22 +0530

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Petition is decided finally at the admission stage.

¶12

By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31/07/2025 rendered by the Arbitrator, National Highway Acquisition Sangli, District Sangli in Arbitration/SR/11/2023 and 12/2023 rejecting the application for condonation of delay presented by the Petitioner.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

Iresh

¶15

22-WP-11772-2025 (C).doc

¶16

The land of the Petitioner has been acquired by the State pursuant to the notification dated 17/11/2017 and accordingly, the Award was passed in favour of the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner vide letter dated 12/03/2020 protested against the Award and accordingly, the matter was referred for arbitration.

¶17

On 10/11/2023, the Petitioner presented an Application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) bearing no. Arbitration/SR/11/2023 and 12/2023 alongwith Application for condonation of delay, is rejected by the order under challenge. As such, the Petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under challenge is unsustainable in law. The Petitioner had indicated just and sufficient cause for the delay and the same ought to have been considered. The appointment of the Arbitrator was pursuant to the Government Notification dated 22/06/2021, as such, the Application preferred by the Petitioner was well within the limitation. Failure to consider the Application would lead to serious prejudice to the Petitioner and further violation Article 300A of the Constitution of India which is rather human right. Hence, prayed to

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

Iresh

¶21

22-WP-11772-2025 (C).doc

¶22

allow the Petition.

¶23

Learned AGP for the State and learned counsel for the Project Director, NHAI, Kolhapur have opposed the Petition and supported the order under challenge.

¶24

Having heard the submissions from the respective sides and upon perusal of the record indicates that the Petitioner is dissatisfied with the Award in relation to the acquired property by the State. As such, the Petitioner has the right to challenge the Award before the appropriate Authority.

¶25

Perusal of the application presented by the Petitioner indicates there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Application. Given the peculiar circumstances of the case and considering the right of the Petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to challenge the Award on merit and the same cannot be defeated by adopting hyper technical approach. In any case, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents by allowing the same.

¶26