NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD Vs. UDAYKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 15-2-2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. Nos. 63433 of 2011 and 76142 to 76152 of 2013, the National Highways Authority of India has approached this Court. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant had challenged the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Arbitrator, who had condoned the delay of four years in initiating the arbitration proceedings by respondents no. 1 to 14. Since the learned Single Judge has upheld the said condonation of delay, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, respondents no. 1 to 14 were the landowners of different parcels of the lands situated in Kavalettu Village, in Ranebennur Taluk of Haveri District. In 2001, in order to widen the National Highway-4 from kilometer 282 to 515 (Haveri, Dharwad, Belgaum) the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, while exercising its powers under the National Highways Act initiated acquisition of land under Sec. 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the Act for short). The acquisition proceedings culminated in award dated 14-1-2004. However, as the respondents no. 1 to 14 were aggrieved by the compensation being granted to them, on 19-11-2009, they sought an Arbitral reference under Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator. The appellant filed their objections. The appellant pleaded that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Act, for filing of a reference before an Arbitrator under Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act, Art. 137 of the Limitation Act would have to be read. Since according to Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed is three years, therefore the Arbitral reference filed by respondents no. 1 to 14 after a lapse of 5 years is patently hit by limitation. Therefore, the Arbitral reference should be dismissed by the learned Arbitrator. However, by order dated 24-2-2010 the said contention raised by the appellant was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, and the delay of five years was condoned. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 24-2-2010, it filed writ petitions before this Court. However, by the impugned order dated 15-2-2015, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the order dated 24-2-2010. Hence, these appeals before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Sachin S. Magadum, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Arbitrator, and has pleaded that since Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation, therefore an application filed before the Arbitrator would be covered by the limitation period prescribed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. Since Art. 137 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for filing of an application, the Arbitral reference made under Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act could not be filed after the lapse of three years. Moreover the power to condone delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is not available to the learned Arbitrator. Therefore the learned Arbitrator should have accepted the contention raised by the appellant. Secondly the learned Single Judge has erred in relying upon Art. 14 of the Constitution of India; the learned Judge has missed the point raised by the appellant with regard to the applicability of the Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, and with regard to the non-availability of power under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.