- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3269 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. FAZALUNNISA W/O LATE SHAMIM ULLA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A 4TH BLOCK, BETHAMANGALA VILLAGE - 563 116 KGF TALUK, KOLAR DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NOOR UL HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-CHENNAI EXPRESS WAS (0/00 TO KM 74/870 AND KM 82/150 FROM 82/15 TO 83/350) NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA BADAVANE, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGER(TECHNICAL) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR BANGALORE-CHENNAI EXPRESS WAY Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 AND PIU NO. 84/11, UTTARAHALLI MAIN RAOD, KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DATED 26.09.2023 VIDE ARB/BCE/KGF 291/2021-22 KOLAR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Shri N. Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'NH Act') for enhancement of compensation was held to be barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963'). 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri N. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.480/1 measuring 1054 square meters situated at Bethamangala village and Hobli, KGF Taluk, Kolar District. 6. Respondent No.2 has acquired the said land measuring 1054 square meter for the purpose of Bangalore-Chennai expressway. An award dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 31.01.2018 was passed by fixing compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 on 21.09.2021 under Section 3G (5) of the NH Act seeking enhancement. Respondent No.1 however, rejected the application holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation of three years under Article 137 of Act of 1963. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and perverse since the NH Act does not prescribe any specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. While Article 137 of the Act of 1963 may apply, the limitation of three years must be computed excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition(c)No.3/2020 concerning the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Apex Court by its order dated 10.01.2022 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation prescribed under all - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 general and special laws. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: "It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the Court or Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings." 8. In the present case, the petitioner filed the application on 21.09.2021, which falls within COVID-19 exclusion period, consequently the finding of respondent No.1 that the application was barred by limitation is unsustainable in law. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44578 WP No. 3269 of 2025 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed. iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh on its merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK