Case Law Details
Ghanshyam Gupta Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.226 of 2015 (K. Leela Vs. The District Collector and Arbitrator and another) held in para 19 to the effect that as there is no specific period provided for making a claim seeking higher compensation, the residuary clause under Article 113 of the Limitation Act has to be applied which is three years from the date on which the right to sue accrues. Consequently, if no such steps are taken within the said period, the Arbitrator is entitled to reject the claim as barred by limitation.
Having considered the contentions in the aforesaid judgments, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for. Admittedly, no limitation is provided for filing an appeal under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, it can be construed, as held in the aforesaid judgments, that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable to such cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the lands bearing Khasra No.918 admeasuring 0.886 hectare, Khasra No.919 admeasuring 0.458 hectare and Khasra No.922 admeasuring 1.023 hectares, situated in village Pali, Municipal Council, Birsinghpur Pali, Ward No.4, Police Station and Tahsil Pali, District Umaria (M.P.). That the respondent No.3 namely Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation acquired 0.477 hectare in part of Khasra No.918 area 0.886 hectare, 0.010 hectare in part of Khasra No.919 area 0.458 hectare and 0.010 hectares in part of Khasra No.922 area 1.023 hectares. An award was passed on 30.07.2015, wherein the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs.10,39,638/- for area 0.477 hectare, Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectare and Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectares. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of award, the petitioner challenged the same under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) before the learned Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shahdol Division, Shahdol. He also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay, if any, in challenging the said award. The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
