SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI K M v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR
WP/37400/2025 · 2025-12-12
K S Hemalekha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 88189 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 88189 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 37400 OF 2025 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI K M S/O MUNISHAMAPPA.M, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.47, KALLIKUPPA VILLAGE, GOLLAHALLI POST, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.
2. 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-560 024.
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
3. DEPUTY CO-ORDINATOR (TECHNICAL) AND PLANNING DIRECTOR, NHAI AND PIU BENGALURU-CHENNAI EXPRESSWAY, NO.84/11, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,AGA FOR R1;
SRI. N KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 30.01.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. A.R.B./B.C.E/K.G.F/258/2021-22 (ANNX-A) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.6/2, MEASURING 4300 SQ. METERS, SITUATED AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 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
Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.
2. Sri. N.Kumar, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
3. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, National Highways, Kolar District, whereby the application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘N.H Act’ for short) was rejected on the ground of limitation.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of SRI. H.S.SHANKARAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1 (H.S.SHANKARAIAH), wherein this Court at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 has passed the following
order:
"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
1 WP.No.27347/2025 (LA-RES), D.D.03.11.2025
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
years must be computed excluding the period covered by the Supreme Court's Suo Moto 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 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 07.09.2021, 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:
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned
order dated 05.01.2024 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."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly does not dispute that the petitioner’s application was filed on 07.09.2021, and that the said date falls within the COVID- 19 pandemic exclusion period as declared by the Apex Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court finds that controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
the decision of this Court in the case of H.S.SHANKARAIAH (supra), wherein this Court has categorically held that where an application under Section 3G(5) of the N.H Act is filed during the COVID-19 exclusion period, rejection of such application on the ground of limitation is legally unsustainable. In the present case, admitted position that the application was on 17.09.2021, which falls within the period excluded by the
order of the Apex Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by respondent No.1 that the application is barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 30.01.2024 deserves to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted for fresh consideration on merits and thus the following:
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed.
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53577 WP No. 37400 of 2025
ii) The impugned
order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 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
PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22