Disposed

B G Girisha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026WP/37811/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act via a writ petition. The High Court held that Article 226/227 is not the competent jurisdiction for extending mandate. It disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to approach the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; liberty reserved to approach the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for extension.

B G Girisha Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2938 WP No. 37811 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 37811 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B .G. GIRISHA

¶9

S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NANADHAGOKULA, KALAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶10

B.G. KRISHNAPPA, S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR WHO IS PETITIONER NO. 6)

¶11

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

B.G. SRINIVASA, S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NANADHAGOKULA, KALAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶13

B.G. SATHYANARAYANA S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NANADHAGOKULA, KALAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577501.

¶14

B.G. NANDHAGOPAL, S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, (DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:2938 WP No. 37811 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

4. NAGARATHNA

¶19

W/O LATE B. G. NANDHAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NANADHAGOKULA, KALAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶20

B.G. PRANESHA, S/O. GOVINDHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NANADHAGOKULA, KALAGOTE, CHITRADURGA -577501.

¶21

6. ANASUYAMMA,

¶22

W/O. LATE B.G. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶23

R/AT KALGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R. B., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-13, NO. 60, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577501.

¶28

PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), NEAR J.M.I.T. COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577502.

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:2938 WP No. 37811 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577501.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R3)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO EXTEND THE TRIM OF ARBITRATOR/R-3 AND DIRECT THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR/R-3 TO PASS APPROPRIATE AWARD WITHIN A FIXED TIME LIMIT IN CASE NO. ARB:NH-50(13):CR:194/2019 AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioners have sought for an appropriate

¶41

direction so as to extend the mandate of the arbitrator i.e., respondent No.3.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mandate in terms of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') within which

¶43

the arbitrator has to pass an award has expired and is seeking for extension stating there are bona-fide reasons.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2938 WP No. 37811 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶48

that the extension of mandate is only upon the Court

¶49

being satisfied of sufficient cause.

¶50

It is noticed that the Apex Court in the case of Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) vs. M/s BSC & C and C JV in SLP(C).No.10544/2024 had observed that the High Court would have power to extend mandate in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 29A of the Act only where the High Court has original civil jurisdiction. It is further pointed out that the power for extension of mandate is to be exercised before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district.

¶51

Taking note of the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred case and noticing that there is no original jurisdiction to this High Court, the competent Court to pass order for extension of mandate under Section 29A of the Act, would be the Principal Civil

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:2938 WP No. 37811 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Court having original jurisdiction. Accordingly, petition is

¶56

disposed of.

¶57

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the competent Court i.e., the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district and seek for extension of mandate. All contentions are kept open. In light of the limited prayer made, if the petitioners were to file an application seeking for extension of mandate within one week from today, the Court should endeavour to dispose of the same within an outer limit of one month from the

¶58

date of file coming up before the Court.

¶59

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶60

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶61

MCR

B G Girisha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B G Girisha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Dhruvija Nisarga Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivarajaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumari Pavithra G S Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Polki S Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2) Bengaluru

M/S S and J Associates Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt. Puttathayamma. a. M. Vs the State of Karnataka