Sri H S Shankaraiah Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M (NATIONAL HIGHWAY) Location: HIGH KOLAR DISTRICT, COURT OF KOLAR 563101. KARNATAKA

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-CHENNAI EXPRESS WAY (KM 0/000 TO KM 78/870 AND KM 82/150 TO 83/350) NO.678/3, NEERBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024.

¶15

DEPUTY CO-ORDINATOR (TECHNICAL) AND PLANNING DIRECTOR, NHAI AND PIU

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:43892 WP No. 27347 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU-CHENNAI EXPRESSWAY, NO.84/11, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 05.01.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. A.R.B/B.C.E/K.G.F/261/2021-22 (ANNX-A) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶27

for respondent No.1.

¶28

Sri N.Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, by which the application

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43892 WP No. 27347 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

filed by the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'NH Act') for enhancement of compensation was held to be barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963').

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. N.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.95/3 measuring 3 acres 20.04 guntas of Kodipalli Village, Kyasamablli Hobli, KGF Taluk, Kolar District.

¶35

Respondent No.2 has acquired a portion of the said land measuring 4073 square meter for the purpose of Bangalore-Chennai expressway. An award dated 31.01.2018 was passed by fixing compensation at `6,85,845/-. Being dissatisfied with the compensation,

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43892 WP No. 27347 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 on 07.09.2021 under Section 3G (5) of the NH Act seeking enhancement. Respondent No.1 however, rejected the application holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation of three years under Article 137 of Act of 1963.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and perverse since the NH Act does not prescribe any specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. While Article 137 of the Act of 1963 may apply, the limitation of three years must be computed excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3/2020 concerning the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Apex Court by its order dated 10.01.2022 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation prescribed under all general and special laws. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43892 WP No. 27347 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

"It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the Court or Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

¶43

In the present case, the petitioner filed the application on 07.09.2021, which falls within COVID-19 exclusion period, consequently the finding of respondent No.1 that the application was barred by limitation is unsustainable in law.

¶44

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43892 WP No. 27347 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ii) The impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed .

¶50

iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh on its merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri H S Shankaraiah v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Shankaraiah v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Jagadish H. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Azaruddeen Vs the Government of Karnataka

M.T. Govindaraju Vs the Managing Director

Sri Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Adv. Manjunatha G Vs State of Karnataka