Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 05 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit (Mysuru) and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for NH‑275 (Bangalore‑Mysore Division). Respondents – Special Deputy Commissioner 3 and Arbitrator, Bangalore Urban District, and Mr. C. Pramod (individual landowner).
  • Nature of dispute: Compensation for land (1398 sq m) in Survey Nos. 42/2 and 179/1, Kumbalagodu Village, acquired for the up‑gradation/widening of NH‑275.
  • Key procedural timeline:
  • Preliminary acquisition notification under Section 3‑A(1) NH Act dated 02‑02‑2016; final notification dated 04‑10‑2016.
  • SLAO award dated 05‑01‑2017 determined market value of dry agricultural land at ₹3,50,00,000 per acre (₹8,646 per sq m) and total compensation of ₹4,07,92,483 (including ₹29,66,386 for structures, ₹1,36,400 for malkis in Survey 42/2, ₹71,240 for malkis in Survey 179/1).
  • Landowner filed application under Section 3G(5) NH Act; arbitral award dated 08‑07‑2021 was set aside by the Bengaluru Rural District Court on 22‑11‑2022 and matter remanded.
  • New arbitral award dated 01‑12‑2023 used Guideline Value Notification (28‑03‑2016) of ₹19,380 per sq m for Kumbalagodu Industrial Area, treating the land as fully developed.
  • Appellants filed a Section 33 application on 09‑05‑2024 alleging the land was undeveloped and should be valued as agricultural land with a 55 % uplift; the Arbitral Tribunal rejected it on 13‑06‑2024, citing limitation.
  • District Court order dated 13‑02‑2026 upheld the award and dismissed the appeal (A.P.No. 42/2024).
  • Legal provisions examined: Section 37(1)(c) A&C Act (appeal), Section 34 A&C Act (setting aside award), Section 33 A&C Act (correction/interpretation/additional award), Section 5 Limitation Act, Section 3G(5) NH Act, Section 2(4) A&C Act, Section 43 A&C Act, Section 29(2) Limitation Act, and related statutory scheme.
  • Supreme Court precedents cited: Union of India vs Popular Construction Co., Government of Maharashtra vs Borse Brothers Engineers, North Delhi Municipal Corp vs S.A. Builders, Deputy Commissioner vs S.V. Global Mill, Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs Lalit Narain Mishra, Geojit Financial Services vs Sandeep Gurav, among others.
  • Counsel arguments: Appellants argued that Section 5 Limitation Act could condone the delay and that Section 33 period should be flexible in statutory arbitrations; respondents contended the period is absolute and not subject to condonation.
  • Court reasoning: The Court held that the 30‑day period under Section 33 is inflexible unless parties agree otherwise; the Limitation Act does not apply to statutory arbitrations under the NH Act; the application was filed beyond the prescribed period, and no condonation is permissible. Consequently, the petition under Section 34 was also time‑barred.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
  • The arbitral award dated 01‑12‑2023, based on the Guideline Value of ₹19,380 per sq m, stands affirmed.
  • No relief is granted to the appellants; the compensation determined by the Arbitral Tribunal remains enforceable.

Topics: Arbitration; Compensation; Statutory Limitation