Sri H K Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.32479 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI H.K. KODANDARAMA S/O LATE KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 8^TH BLOCK, 2^ND CROSS, NEWTOWN VASANTHA NAGARA, BETHAMANGALA, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR, (NATIONAL HIGHWAY) KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS IN CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./365/2021-22 AND CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./367/2021-22 ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.11/5 (OLD SY.NO.11), MEASURING 3101 SQ. METERS AND LAND IN SY.NO.11/6 (OLD SY.NO.11), MEASURING 1821 SQ. METERS, BOTH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED AT N.G. HULKUR VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶22

for respondent No.1.

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, by which the application 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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963').

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.11/5 (old Sy. No. 11) measuring 35 guntas and land in Sy. No. 11/6 (old Sy.No.11) measuring 0.30 guntas, both situated at N.G.Hulkur Village, Kyasamaballi Hobli, KGF Taluk, Kolar District.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has acquired a portion of Sy.No.11/5 (old Sy.No.11) measuring 3101 square meters and 1821 square meters in Sy. No.11/6 (old Sy. No.11) for the purpose of Bangalore-Chennai expressway. An award dated 31.01.2017 was passed by fixing compensation at `8,04,987/-. Being dissatisfied with the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

compensation, the petitioner filed two applications before respondent No.1 on 01.10.2021 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.

¶34

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:

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

"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."

¶38

In the present case, the petitioner filed the applications on 01.10.2021, 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.

¶39

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46537 WP No. 32479 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ii) The impugned order dated 16.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed . 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.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶47

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri H K Kodandarama v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Kodandarama v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

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

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt.S.Sunand @ Sunandamma

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

Sri Chenappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Lalitha v Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs G R Manjunatha

Mr L N Srinivasa Murthy Vs State of Karnataka