Karnataka High Court
H S Parashivamurthy Since Dead By His Lrs ... vs The Special Land Acquistion Officer on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
MFA No. 6153 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6153 OF 2025 (AA)
BETWEEN:
H.S. PARASHIVAMURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
i) SHIVAMMA
W/O LATE H.S. PARASHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
ii) H.P. MANJUVANI
D/O LATE H.S. PARASHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally
signed by BOTH ARE R/O SEEGEPALYA
SRIDEVI S RAJATHADRIPURA POST
Location: TIPTUR TALUK
High Court TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 114
of Karnataka
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY NO. 206
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
MFA No. 6153 of 2025
HC-KAR
BETTASHREE COMPLEX
SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT
TUMAKURU - 572 102
2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NH-206, TUMKUR - SHIMOGA DIVISION
NEAR RAILWAY GATE
BATAWADI
TUMKUR - 572 103
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU - 572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SEC 37(1) (C) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.01.2025 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU (SITTING AT TIPTUR) IN
ARBITRATION SUIT NO.10008/2024 BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS HEREIN OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE REMAND THE MATTER TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORITY FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION &
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
MFA No. 6153 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section
37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act]
impugning an order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur (sitting at Tiptur)
whereby the appellants' application to set aside an arbitral award
dated 25.05.2022 [impugned award] was rejected. The father of
the appellants was the owner of the lands measuring 4,993
sq.mtrs. (3,292 sq.mtrs. falling in Survey No.59/1 and 1,701
sq.mtrs. falling in Survey No.59/6) located at Rajathadripura
Village, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District. The
subject lands were acquired by the 2nd respondent for widening of
National Highway 206. The appellants' father claimed that at the
time of acquisition there were valuable trees, a house as well as a
bore-well on the subject land.
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
HC-KAR
2. The father of the appellants was awarded a sum of
Rs.46,71,704/- for the subject land, which according to him was
below its market value. Accordingly, the father of the appellants
made a reference under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway
Act, 1956, before respondent No.3. The appellants, inter alia,
claimed that the adjacent lands were acquired at a value of
Rs.1,210/- per sq.mtr. However, the compensation for the subject
land was determined at the rate of Rs.184/- per sq. mtr.
3. The Arbitral Tribunal did not accept the said contention and
determined the value of the subject land based on the purchase
transaction during the relevant period. The Arbitral Tribunal used a
multiplication factor as provided in the notification dated
03.05.2014, as the subject land is located five kilometres from the
outskirts of the Municipal limits.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants (as LRs of
their deceased father) preferred an application under Section 34 of
the A&C Act to set aside the same. The said application is placed
on record. It indicates that it was filed on 13.03.2024. The
averments made in the said application indicate that a certified
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
HC-KAR
copy of the award was issued to the appellants on 26.09.2023. It is,
thus, apparent that the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act
was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 34(3) of the
A&C Act. More importantly, the delay beyond the period of 3
months from the receipt of the impugned award, is in excess of
thirty days, which could be condoned by a Court in terms of the
proviso to Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that initially the application was presented at District Court, Tumkur,
but was later presented at Tiptur and therefore some delay was
occasioned on account of the appellants pursuing their remedy at
Tumkur. However, there are no averments to the said effect in the
application filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
6. Concededly, no application was filed by the appellants
claiming exclusion of any period under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, 1963. We have also examined the application under Section
34 of the A&C Act. The same bears the seal of the District Court,
Tumkur (sitting at Tiptur). The said application was received on
23.02.2024. The said application does not have any stamp, which
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
HC-KAR
indicates that it has been filed in another Court. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that efforts were
made to file the same at the District Court, Tumkur, but the same
was not accepted. It is implicit in the said submission that the
application was not filed at Tumkur. Therefore, the question of
extending any benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
does not arise.
7. We also note that the respondents had raised the issue of
limitation before the learned District Court. However, the impugned
order does not contain any findings in regard to the said contention.
It is clear that the application filed by the appellants under Section
34 of the A&C Act, which was disposed of by the impugned order,
was filed beyond the period of limitation.
8. It is well settled that the Courts does not have the jurisdiction
to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as provided
under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. Thus, the
District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's
application to set aside the impugned award. Notwithstanding the
NC: 2025:KHC:48922-DB
HC-KAR
appellant's challenge on merits, the challenge to the impugned
award is required to be rejected as the same has become final.
9. In view of the above, we dispose of the present appeal
setting aside the impugned order and confirming that the impugned
award as final.
10. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD
