Karnataka High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Sri N Nanjegowda on 29 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
MFA No. 3382 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3382 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTAITON UNIT-BANGALORE,
SY NO.13, 14TH KM, NAGASANDRA
BANGALORE-TUMKUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 073
REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR,
K.B. JAYAKUMARA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA ANGADI B V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1.
by DEVIKA M SRI. N. NANJEGOWDA
Location: HIGH S/O NARAYANASWAMY
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.25, SEEKAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORAE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
DEVANAHALLI (BEERASANDRA)
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
MFA No. 3382 of 2023
(NHAI) SOMPURA-HOSKOTE SECTION,
NEAR SHRIGANDHA PETROL BUNK,
SITE OFFICE NELMANGALA,
NELMANGALA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI C V., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. GOPALKRISHNA SOODI., AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN ARBITRATION PETITION
NO.15007/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL,
DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE ARBITRATION PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE A AND C ACT R/W ORDER
VII RULE -1 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and
counsel appearing for respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging
the order passed by the V Additional District Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Devanahalli, dismissing
the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
for short) read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC by National
Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as
'NHAI', for short).
3. The main contention urged in this appeal invoking
the proviso to Section 37(1)(c) of the Act that the Trial
Court has committed an error in confirming the Arbitral
Award dated 11.01.2022 without application of mind.
Learned Counsel also vehemently contend that the court
was pleased to appreciate the contention of the NHAI that
the Arbitrator has not assigned any acceptable reasons to
enhance the compensation at 100% and the amount
decided by the SLAO and the Arbitrator has passed the
impugned Award arbitrarily and contrary to the findings
given and hence, the order of impugned is erroneous.
Learned Counsel further contended that the District Court
has committed an error in not considering the grounds
which have been urged. Learned Counsel for the appellant
also vehemently contend that the Trial Court has lost sight
of the fact that as per the provisions of Section 3G(7) of
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
the National Highways Act, the market value and status of
the land as per available documents as on the date of
publication of the notification under Section 3A has to be
considered for determining compensation and accordingly,
the SLAO has passed the award. Learned Counsel also
vehemently contended that when there was a delay in
filing the Reference that too made after 7 years of the
award passed in the year 2013 ought not to have granted
the interest for the delay of 7 years and hence, it requires
interference.
4. Per contra, Counsel appearing for the respondent
land looser vehemently contend that the District Court
while dismissing the application filed under Section 34 of
the Act, particularly, in paragraph No.22 taken note of the
Article 137 of the Limitation Act and also discussed with
regard to limitation starts to run when the right to apply
accrues. When the right accrues to respondent No.1 to
approach the arbitration is a pure question of fact.
Nothing there in Article 137 of the Limitation Act to hold
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
that the limitation starts to run from the date of notice of
Award. Learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court that the District Court also in paragraph No.23 has
made observations that no document is placed before the
Court that the Reference is beyond 3 years and that apart
from that taken note of the fact that the compensation
amount was paid in the year 2020 and the said fact needs
to be accepted as contended by the respondents. So also
taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo and
Others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 73, wherein also the
Apex Court has also observed that "in the absence of any
specific limitation prescribed thereunder, necessary
implication is that the general law of the limitation
prescribed in the Limitation Act stands excluded" and the
District Court has given reasons while dismissing the
application filed under Section 34 of the Act, and hence, it
does not require interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-
State also would submit that the reasoning is given while
dismissing the Arbitration Petition by the District Court.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant
and also the Counsel appearing for the respondents and
the fact that the notification was issued in the year 2011 is
not in dispute and also the Award was passed in the year
2013 is also not in dispute. The records also disclosed
that having paid the compensation in the year 2020, the
same is also taken note by the District Court while
considering the matter and also the fact that the
Reference was filed in the year 2020. When such being
the case, in paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the order, the
District Court has taken note of the said fact and also
taken note of the provisions of the Article 137 of the
Limitation Act and so also the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in (1997) 6 SCC 73. Learned
Counsel for the appellant does not disputed the fact that
the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
Apex Court with regard to the limitation is concerned.
When such being the case, when the Trial Court has
passed the reasoned order taking note of the year of
acquisition notification, determination of compensation and
payment of compensation, and also taken note of the fact
that no material is placed before the Court that the
Reference is filed after a period of limitation. When such
reason is given by the District Court while dismissing the
application, the scope of application filed under Section 37
(1)(c) of the Act is also very limited. Even Section 34 is
also only for the limited extent. When such being the case,
I do not find any error committed by the Arbitrator as well
as the Appellate Authority invoking the provisions of
Section 37 of the Act, so also Section 37 (1)(c), wherein
only in a exceptional circumstance, the Court can exercise
the power and the same is very limited and the scope and
ambit also very limited. Hence, I do not find any ground
to reverse the findings of the District Court as well as the
Award passed by the Arbitrator.
NC: 2024:KHC:43634
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main appeal,
pending I.As., do not survive for consideration
and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
