NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. VENKATACHALAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 238 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sworn to by Sri R.K. Gupta, Project Director, PIU, Bangalore National Highways Authority of India. The affidavit merely states that the delay is purely due to administrative reasons, except this one sentence regarding delay, no other reason is forthcoming in the affidavit explaining the delay. Such reason can be assigned in every matter by the State or State Government Authority.

(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel, I find that the conclusion reached by the Court below is justified though the reasons assigned are not proper, I say so, for the following facts and reasons.

(3.) Respondent 1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 46/3B measuring 1904.52 sq. ft.; he is not the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 46/5 measuring 5197.08 sq. ft. The land of the 1st respondent in Sy. No. 46/3B measuring 1904.52 sq. ft. was acquired along with various other lands including Sy. No. 46/5 measuring 5197.08 sq. ft. by National Highways Authority of India situated at Hongasandra Village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award granting Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. in favour of the landowners. All the landowners including respondent 1 herein approached the Arbitrator, under the provisions of National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 praying for enhancement of compensation. The Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,200/- by the award dated 18-5-2009 in respect of all the properties including the property of respondent 1. Being aggrieved by the award made by the Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner dated 18-5-2009, the appellant herein approached the City Civil Court, Bangalore City, under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.S. No. 1119 of 2009. In the memorandum (i.e., plaint), the appellant herein/plaintiff before the Court below pleaded that the said suit is filed in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 46/5 measuring 5197.08 sq. ft. situated at Hongasandra Village. However, the 1st respondent herein was made party to the suit. The written statement came to be filed by the 1st respondent with an averment that the suit/plaint is misconceived and is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The other grounds are also taken. Ultimately the suit filed under Section 34(2) of the Act came to be dismissed by the order dated 7-1-2011 as barred by limitation.