Dismissed

Sri H Raja Reddy v. National Highways Authority of India

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2023WP/3777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award. Noting pending statutory arbitration, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to approach the arbitrator and urging disposal within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to proceed with pending arbitration proceedings.

Sri H Raja Reddy Vs National Highways Authority of India — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 3777 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3777 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H RAJA REDDY, S/O OBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/1, SY NO.97, NETTAGERE BOLARE VILLAGE, KANAKPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

¶9

Digitally

¶10

signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. H C NAGARAJU, S/O CHIKKAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO.36 (OLD NO.54) SURVEY NO.97, NETTAGERE BOLARE VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,

¶12

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PAWAN SHYAM A.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, BASAVANAPURA (RAMADEVARAPADA) RAMANAGARA-562 128.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 3777 of 2023

¶19

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY -209. MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SUDHARSAN SURESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PARYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD BEARING NO.NHAI/SLAO/BNG/NET/AWD/01/12-13 DATED 10/03/2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND M AND DIRECTING THEM TO AWARD COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ACQUIRED LANDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the lands in question are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the award passed by the 2^nd respondent-SLAO under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that he has no much objection for the acquisition and that his grievance is essentially against the land being treated as non-residential/agricultural when apparently it is residential. In all fairness, he notifies to the Court that the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 3777 of 2023

¶28

award is put in challenge under the provisions of Sec.3G(5) of the 1956 Act before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.

¶29

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 opposes the petition contending that award having already been challenged, no other circumstances has been shown warranting indulgence of the Writ Court. Petitioner having already invoked the statutory arbitration availing under the 1956 Act, now cannot come before the Writ Court to complain against the award in question, especially when challenge to the award as already stated above has been made. He hastens to add that grievance of the petitioners as to the nature of the land can be duly addressed by the Arbitrator himself. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of 2^nd respondent. In a catena of decisions, similar

¶31

¶32

WP No. 3777 of 2023

¶33

reasoning is accepted by this Court and therefore, no exception can be made in this case, there being no exceptional circumstances.

¶34

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off requesting the statutory Arbitrator to try & dispose off the pending arbitration proceedings within a period of nine

¶35

months. All contentions are kept open.

¶36

No costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Snb/

Sri H Raja Reddy v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Raja Reddy v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kempamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M. Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Maraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Official Liquidator of Vs Nil

Smt. Rashmi R Vs the State of Karnataka

Trv (Kerala) International Airport Limited Vs Kingfisher Airlines Limited(in Winding Up)