Sri H S Shankaraiah Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:49840 WP No. 27385 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.27385 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H.S. SHANKARAIAH S/O LATE L. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT N.G. HULKUR, KYASAMBALLI HOBLL, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRASHANTH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ARBITRATOR, (NATIONAL HIGHWAY) REPT. BY CENTRAL PWD. KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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.

¶14

DEPUTY CO-ORDINATOR (TECHNICAL) AND PLANNING DIRECTOR, NHAI AND PIU BENGALURU-CHENNAI EXPRESSWAY, NO.84/11, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49840 WP No. 27385 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./263/2021-22 (ANNEXURE-A) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶22

Sri N.Kumar, leaned counsel is directed to

¶23

accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶25

issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sri H.S. Shankaraiah Vs. Deputy Commissioner and

¶26

Arbitrator (National Highway)¹ (Sri H.S. Shankaraiah) and similar order be passed.

¶27

1 W.P.No.27347/2025 D.D

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49840 WP No. 27385 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner

¶31

of land bearing Sy.No.95/3, measuring 3 acres 20.04 guntas of Kodigepalli Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, K.G.F Taluk, Kolar District. Respondent No.2 has acquired a portion of the said land measuring 4598 square meters for the purpose of Bengaluru-Chennai express way and an award dated 31.01.2017 was passed by fixing compensation of `6,39,790/-. Feeling unsatisfied with the compensation, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 on 07.09.2021 under Section 3(g)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH, Act” for short) seeking enhancement. Respondent No.1 rejected the application holding that it was filed beyond prescribed limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶32

This Court in Sri H.S. Shankaraiah’s case held

¶33

at paragraph No.7 as under:

¶34

“7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and perverse

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:49840 WP No. 27385 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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:

¶39

"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 Tribunal can condone delay) and or termination of proceedings."

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49840 WP No. 27385 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Since the petitioner filed an application on

¶43

07.09.2021, which falls within COVID-19 exclusion period. The finding of respondent No.1 that the application was barred by limitation is unsustainable. Accordingly, the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of Sri H.S. Shankaraiah’s and this Court pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶50

AT

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

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 Shivaraju S Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Mrs. Laxmi Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Madan Lal Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.a Singarachari Vs the Commissioner

The Bangalore City Jetty Community and Sree Nimbaja Devi Temple Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Rajiv Travels Vs the State of Karnataka