Smt. Subbalakshmi S v. Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator,

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:5783 WP(No.(30922(of(2025 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( NDDATED(THIS(THE(2 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(30922(OF(2025((LA-RES) BETWEEN:( SMT.,SUBBALAKSHMI,S., W/O,SRIRAMAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,N.G.HULKUR,, KYASAMBALLI,HOBLI,, K.G.F.,TALUK,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563116., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,K.,VIJAYA,KUMAR.,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,AND,ARBITRATOR,, Digitally (NATIONAL,HIGHWAY), signedtiby VIJAYA0P KOLAR,DISTRICT,, Location: KOLAR,563101.,HIGH COURT0OF KARNATAKA

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-560024., e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:5783 WP(No.(30922(of(2025

3., DEPUTY,CO-ORDINATOR,(TECHNICAL), AND,PLANNING,DIRECTOR,,NHAI,AND,PIU,, BENGALURU-CHENNAI,EXPRESSWAY,,, NO.84/11,,UTTARAHALLI,MAIN,ROAD,,, KENGERI,,BENGALURU-560060., …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,ORDER, DATED,10.01.2024,PASSED,BY,THE,R1,IN,CASE,NO.A.R.B/B.C., E/K.G.F/08/2021-22, (ANNEXURE-A), BY, ALLOWING, THE, WRIT, PETITION.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV ORAL(ORDER The, petitioner, has, sought, for, setting, aside, of, the, order, dated, 10.01.2024, passed, by, respondent, No.1, at, Annexure-A.,The,order,at,Annexure-A,is,an,order,whereby, the, authority, has, rejected, the, request, of, the, petitioner,, who,had,sought,for,enhanced,compensation,on,the,ground, that, such, application, was, filed, beyond, the, period, of, 3, years,from,the,date,of,the,award,notice,of,12.07.2017.,,

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Survey No.243, measuring 3 acres and 7 guntas situated in Vengasandra Village, Kyasamballi Hobli, KGF Taluk, Kolar District. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had acquired portion of the land for the purpose of the Bangalore-Chennai expressway and in the process of such acquisition, an award came to be passed on 31.01.2017, while notice came to be issued to the petitioner regarding the award on 12.07.2017.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 3(g) (5) of the National Highways Act. The petitioner as against the order of award of compensation had filed an appeal in the form of an application. Same came to be rejected on the ground that same was filed beyond 3 years from the date of notice of award to the petitioner.

¶4Perusal of the order at Annexure-A would indicate that the application filed seeking enhancement was rejected as being time barred, while referring to time prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which it is stated to be applicable. It is noticed from the said order that the period of 3 years is calculated from 12.07.2017 and would end on 12.07.2020 and the present application filed on 08.04.2021 was beyond the time prescribed.

¶5The petitioner has relied on order of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.3629/2024 and submits that while calculating the period of limitation, the orders in suo-moto case W.P.No.3/2020 by the Apex Court requires to be taken out of, wherein there was exclusion of period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 while calculating the limitation in light of the directions of the Apex Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondent would not controvert the order passed in W.P.No.3629/2024.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ would be maintainable in light of the settled position as made out in W.P.No.3629/2024.

¶8Observations made in W.P.No.3629/2024 at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 reads as follows:

¶3The Supreme Court in the suo moto case in WP No.3 of 2020, in its order dated 10.01.2022 has stated 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."

¶4In view of the above, it is clear that the period between

15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022 stands excluded for the purposes of periods prescribed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the application in the instant case was filed during the aforementioned

period i.e., on 08.04.2021, the impugned order holding that the application seeking for reference was time-barred cannot be sustained."

¶9In light of the same and taking note of the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 having been excluded, even if the 3 years period was taken note of from 12.07.2017, the time available to the petitioner would be 3 years from 12.07.2017 with an additional period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. If that were to be so, application filed on 08.04.2021 would fall within the period of limitation prescribed as extended by virtue of orders passed in W.P.No.3/2020.

¶10Accordingly, taking note of the observations in W.P.No.3629/2024, the order at Annexure-A is set aside and matter is remitted for fresh consideration on its merits. Needless to state, the application seeking enhancement is to be construed as one being filed within time in light of the observations made above. Accordingly,

petition is remitted for consideration on merits by respondent No.1. According, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR