Sri D Purushotham 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.ADITYA DIWAKAR AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHOBITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29962 WP No. 16825 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 RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./337/2021-22 (ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.189/1, MEASURING 490.33 SQ. METERS, SITUATED AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶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/337/2021-22 dated 18.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1, in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.189/1, measuring 490.33 square meters situated at Vengasandra Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District.

¶25

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.189/1, measuring 490.33 square meters of Vengasandra Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District, the portion of which was acquired for the purpose of the Bengaluru-

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29962 WP No. 16825 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Chennai expressway. An award bearing No. J¯ï.J.PÀÆå/E.JPïì,¦.©.¹/J¸ï.Dgï/©.¦.n..30/2016-17 dated 31.01.2017

¶29

was passed, determining the compensation payable at a sum of Rs.1,06,926/-. An award notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2017. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 with request for enhancement of the compensation on 01.10.2021. 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.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice of the award was served on the petitioner on 15.05.2017 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

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29962 WP No. 16825 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Application No.665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 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.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shobith N Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 after receipt of notice submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court.

¶35

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:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The petition is allowed ;

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29962 WP No. 16825 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

¶41

18.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed.

¶42

iii. The respondent No.1 is directed to refer the request of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation as prescribed under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶43

iv. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shobith N Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri D Purushotham v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Purushotham 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

Mr. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Mangala Gowri Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Sri. Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dominic Savio D Souza Vs the Commissioner

C. v. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka