- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51485 OF 2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH S/O OBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 2. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 3. SMT K P KAMALA W/O V N MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 4. SMT KARIYAMMA D/O PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 5. SRI V.N. MURTHY S/O LATE VEERANNA R/AT NELAHAL Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 6. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O RANGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. 7. SMT KARIYAMMA W/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NELAHAL BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANOHAR V., ADVOCATAE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE ARBITRATOR NH-4 & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. THE POJECT DIRECTOR (PROJECT IMPLEMENT UNIT) NHAI, NH-4, NEAR JMIT, CHITRADURGA - 577 546. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHAI, NH-4 (TUNKUR-HARIHAR SECTION), KSRTC DEPOT ROAD NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE CHITRADURGA - 577 546. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAGAR LADDA.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.07.2018 WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-L, M, N, P, Q, R AND S RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 as per Annexures- L, M, N, P, Q, R and S respectively on the application filed by the petitioners under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short Act, 1956) are before this Court seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the said orders. 2. Petitioners claim to be the owners of lands in various survey numbers as described in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the writ petition which was acquired by the respondent No.3 authority for the purpose of widening of Tumkur-Harihar section (NH-4). That by a common order dated 11.09.2001 under Section 3D(1) of Act, 1956 an award came to be passed determining the rate of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 3. Petitioners received the compensation and the possession of the land has been taken over by the respondent No.3, who in turn has handed over the same to the respondent No. 2. However, subsequently aggrieved by the quantum of compensation petitioners filed application before the respondent No.3 seeking enhancement of compensation. That along with said application petitioners also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 4. That on hearing the petitioners, respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders dated 13.07.2018 dismissing the petitions of the petitioners on the premise of there being a delay in filing the said application and petitioners herein not filing application seeking condonation of delay. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri. Manohar V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the impugned orders submit that the respondent No.1 has dismissed the application on the premise of petitioners approaching after lapse of about 13 to 14 years without filing any application seeking - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 condonation of delay. He submits said reasoning assigned by the respondent No.1 is contrary to the records, inasmuch as, the petitioners indeed had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as per Annexure-K produced to the writ petition seeking condonation of delay if any. That without adverting to said application respondent No.1 has taken on record as application for condonation of delay not having been filed. He submit without adjudication of the application which was indeed filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.1 could not have proceeded further to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. None appears for the respondent -authorities. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Annexure-K is the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, if any, in petitioners filing the application under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. Though in the impugned orders the respondent No.1 has observed that the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 3G(5) have been filed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 belatedly after 13 to 14 years of passing the award, has observed that petitioners have not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. Further there is no order or reasons assigned with regard to petitioners having filed the application seeking condonation of delay. 9. Condonation of delay being a discretionary power vested with the respondent No.1 same ought to have been exercised judiciously. Since the impugned orders does not speak of any consideration of the application which had indeed been filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-K this Court is of the considered view the matter be remitted to the respondent No.1 for consideration of application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after passing the orders on the said application then proceed to pass orders, if any, on merits of the case. 10. Accordingly, the following; ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7451 WP No. 51485 of 2018 (ii) Impugned orders dated 13.07.2018 passed in LAQ.ARB.CR.7(27), CR.7(24), CR.9(1), CR.7(23), CR.7(26), CR.7(25) and CR.7(28)/2016-17 as per Annexures L,M,N P,Q,R and S respectively are quashed. (iii) Respondent No.1- Arbitrator and Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District shall afford an opportunity of hearing on the application seeking condonation of delay and only thereafter proceed to pass orders on the merits. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29