Disposed

D. R. Manjunath v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/37821/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking extension of an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, the Court noted that the High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction. It clarified that such applications must be filed before the Principal Civil Court and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty reserved to file application in the competent Principal Civil Court for extension of mandate.

D. R. Manjunath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1531 WP No. 37821 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 37821 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D.R.MANJUNATH

¶10

S/O LATE D.RAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,

¶11

GAYITHRI

¶12

W/O D.R.MANJUNATH, AGED MAJOR, 62 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

PETITIONER 1 AND 2 ARE : R/AT: "DRAKSHAYINI" MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, TARALABALU NAGAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

¶15

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

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

AND:

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-13, NO.60, 2^ND CROSS ROAD, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 501.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:1531 WP No. 37821 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), NEAR J.M.I.T. COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 502.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 501.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. N.KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO EXTEND THE TERM OF ARBITRATOR/3^RD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR/3^RD RESPONDENT TO PASS APPROPRIATE AWARD WITHIN A FIXED TIME LIMIT IN CASE NO.ARB:NH-13:CR-120/2017 AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have sought for an appropriate

¶31

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

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:1531 WP No. 37821 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed statement of objections. Same is taken on record. It is further submitted that the extension of mandate is only upon the Court being satisfied of sufficient cause.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1531 WP No. 37821 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

competent Court to pass order for extension of mandate under Section 29A of the Act, would be the Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶45

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 date of file coming up before the Court.

¶46

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶47

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶48

MCR

D. R. Manjunath v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. R. Manjunath 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

Smt Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Shree Mallikarjuna Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

G. T. Babu Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri a M Mayanna Vs Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda

SV3 Global Ventures Lp Vs Mr. Rakesh Vij