Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24862 (KAR)

D GOPALAKRISHNA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR (NATIONAL HIGHWAY)

WP/16887/2026 · 2026-06-09

R Nataraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27360 WP No. 16887 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16887 OF 2026 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: D. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ARBITRATOR (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), 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. 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.SHOBITH N SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27360 WP No. 16887 of 2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CASE NO.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./336/2021-22 (ANNEXURE - A) IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.189/1, MEASURING 490.34 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 MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No.1 in case No.A.R.B/B.C.E/K.G.F./336/2021-22 dated 18.01.2024, by which the application of the petitioner for reference was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 2. The land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.189/1 of Vengasandra village, Kyasamballi Hoblli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District was acquired and an award was passed on 31.01.2017. A notice of the award was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2017. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 for enhancement of the compensation on 01.10.2021 under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27360 WP No. 16887 of 2026 Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act,1956. However, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the reference was sought after 3 years prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said endorsement is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2017 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to seek reference within 3 years i.e., by or before 14.05.2020. However, by that time, the country was gripped by COVID-19 pandemic and the Hon'ble Apex Court in suo moto in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 had excluded the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of calculating limitation period for any proceedings before any authority or Court. He therefore submits that the reference sought by the petitioner on 01.10.2021 was well within time and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is without considering the aforesaid circumstance. He also contends that the very same question was considered by this Court in WP No.30922/2025 dated 02.02.2026 and a similar order passed by respondent No.1 was set at nought. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27360 WP No. 16887 of 2026 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3, does not dispute the aforesaid position of law. He also does not dispute that a similar question was considered by this Court in the writ petition referred supra. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order in case No.A.R.B./B.C.E./K.G.F./336/2021-22 dated 18.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Sri.Shobith N Shetty, learned counsel is permitted to file a memo of appearance for respondent Nos.2 and 3 within 10 days. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24