Sri v M Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

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

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHOBITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29302 WP No. 16706 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./373/2021-22 (ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.193, MEASURING 1576 SQ. METERS, SITUATED AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order bearing No.J.Dgï.©./©.¹.E/PÉ.f.J¥sï/373/2021-22 dated 18.01.2024 passed

¶25

by respondent No.1, in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.193, measuring 1576 square meters, situated at Vengasandra Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District.

¶26

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.193, measuring 1576 square meters of Vengasandra Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District, the portion of which was acquired for the purpose of the BengaluruChennai expressway. An award bearing No.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29302 WP No. 16706 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

J¯ï.J.PÀÆå/E.JPïì,¦.©.¹/J¸ï.Dgï/©.¦.n..30/2016-17 dated 31.01.2017

¶30

was passed, determining the compensation payable at a sum of Rs.2,54,330/-. An award notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2017. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 with request for enhancement of the compensation on 04.10.2021. The said application was rejected in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the request was not made within three years from the date of the service of the notice of the award. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of the award was served on the petitioner on 12.07.2017 and that a reference for enhanced compensation was maintainable within three years therefrom. However, by the time the outer limit prescribed expired, the country was gripped by COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, the petitioner could not file the request for enhancement within the three years time prescribed. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.29/2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29302 WP No. 16706 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

No.3/2020, has held that wherever time is fixed and expires during the COVID-19 pandemic, the same should be excluded for the purpose of determining the limitation. He therefore submits that the application filed by the petitioner for enhancement was well within time and hence the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, is liable to be set at nought.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 after receipt of notice submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court.

¶37

In view of the above, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application could not be filed within the time prescribed merits acceptance. Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The petition is allowed ;

¶40