Inordinate Delay In Section 37 Appeal Cannot Be Condoned: Karnataka High Court

An inordinate delay of nearly three years in challenging a land acquisition arbitration order cannot be subsumed under the concept of 'sufficient cause', closing the doors for belated section 37 appeals despite mitigating personal hardship. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a First Appeal preferred by landowners challenging a District Court's order that had overturned an unreasoned land compensation enhancement award.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the appeal filed against an order setting aside an unreasoned arbitral award that had arbitrarily doubled land compensation under national highway acquisition proceedings.

Evaluating the principles governing condonation of delay in arbitration appeals, the Bench examined legal precedents on Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Supreme Court held that the delay beyond 30 days could be condoned and the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act would not control the aspect of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act. However, the court also clarified that the expression 'sufficient cause' was not elastic enough to subsume an inordinate delay."

Addressing the substantive merits of the arbitral award itself, the Court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to provide rationale or refer to statutory considerations. The Court has following directions:

"In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on merits as well as on delay."

Background

The dispute originated from the acquisition of 1,111 sq. meters of land in Bommagatta Village, Davanagere District, under a Section 3A(1) notification dated September 30, 2011, pursuant to the National Highways Act, 1956. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at ₹2,00,000 per acre on March 26, 2013. Dissatisfied, the landowners filed for enhancement under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Arbitrator and Deputy Commissioner enhanced the compensation by two times, referencing the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the National Highways Authority of India challenged this award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, who set aside the arbitral award on February 28, 2022, finding it unreasoned and patently illegal.

Aggrieved landowners approached the High Court with a delay of 1,055 days, citing advanced age, health issues, and financial constraints. Referring to the Supreme Court rulings in N.V. International vs State of Assam ( "(2020) 2 SCC 109": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2361) and its subsequent overruling in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited ( "(2021) 6 SCC 460": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 1761), the High Court held that such an inordinate delay could not be condoned and upheld the District Court's decision on both delay and merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: MFA No. 3117 of 2025 (AA)
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:42700-DB
Case Title: Smt. Annapurnamma and others v. National Highways Authority of India and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri Adinarayanappa, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 10600