Sri. Venkatachalapathi K M Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI K M S/O MUNISHAMAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.47, KALLIKUPPA VILLAGE, GOLLAHALLI POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK,

¶10

KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR

¶16

(NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶17

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,

¶18

NEERBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

BENGALURU-560 060.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA FOR R1;

¶26

SRI. N KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 30.01.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. A.R.B./B.C.E/K.G.F/258/2021-22 (ANNX-A) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.6/2, MEASURING 4300 SQ. METERS, SITUATED AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶32

for respondent No.1.

¶33

Sri. N.Kumar, learned counsel is directed to take

¶34

notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, National Highways, Kolar District, whereby the application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘N.H Act’ for short) was rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

the 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

¶41

AND OTHERS¹ ( H.S.SHANKARAIAH ), wherein this Court at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 has passed the following order:

¶42

"7. 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

¶43

1 WP.No.27347/2025 (LA-RES), D.D.03.11.2025

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

years must be computed excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's Suo Moto 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:

¶48

"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."

¶49

8. 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.

¶50

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORDER

¶54

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

¶55

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."

¶56

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly does not dispute that the petitioner’s application was filed on 07.09.2021, and that the said date falls within the COVID19 pandemic exclusion period as declared by the Apex Court.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶58

and perusal of the record, this Court finds that controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the decision of this Court in the case of H.S.SHANKARAIAH ( supra ), wherein this Court has categorically held that where an application under Section 3G(5) of the N.H Act is filed during the COVID-19 exclusion period, rejection of such application on the ground of limitation is legally unsustainable. In the present case, admitted position that the application was on 17.09.2021, which falls within the period excluded by the order of the Apex Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by respondent No.1 that the application is barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 deserves to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted for fresh consideration on merits and thus the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ii) The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed .

¶68

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.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶71

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. Venkatachalapathi K M v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatachalapathi K M 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 R Murthi Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Afsar Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Heerabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhupendra Kumar Pokhama Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Kusumalatha M.J. Vs Special Deputy Commissioner - 3

M/S Yellamma Dasappa Medical College and Research Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka