SHANTHAMMA ( REP. BY GPA HOLDER B.R.MANJUNATH ) vs ARBITRATOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , HASSAN — 82/2024

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section U/S,34. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

A.P - ARBITRATION MAIN AND MISC

CNR: KAHS010038922024

Filing Number

82/2024

Filing Date

15-Jun-2024

Registration No

82/2024

Registration Date

18-Jun-2024

Court

PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN

Judge

335-Prl. District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section U/S,34
National Highways Act Section U/S,3G

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHANTHAMMA ( REP. BY GPA HOLDER B.R.MANJUNATH )

    Adv. SUJITH D K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARBITRATOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , HASSAN

  2. 2.PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HASSAN

    Adv. VIJAYALAKSHMI K.G

  3. 3.SPECIAL LAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS PROJECT, HASSAN

    Adv. VIJAYALAKSHMI K.G

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Shanthamma v. Arbitrator and Others (AP 82/2024) Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the arbitral award and confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,660 per sq. meter awarded by the arbitrator. The court found the arbitrator properly considered the land's nature as undeveloped, alienated property when determining compensation for land acquired by the National Highways Authority of India. Key Reasoning: Although the court allowed the petitioner's application to condone the filing delay, it rejected the substantive challenge on merits. The petitioner failed to provide the approved layout plan despite claiming development efforts, and the arbitrator reasonably enhanced compensation by 40% based on the land's actual status as undeveloped converted land rather than accepting the petitioner's claim for Rs.2,000 per sq. meter based on a sale deed from a different location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Judgments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  9. 24-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  10. 10-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  11. 08-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  12. 20-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  13. 28-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  14. 03-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  15. 14-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  16. 05-Nov-2024

    First Hearing

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  17. 18-Sep-2024

    Summons

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  18. 24-Jul-2024

    Summons

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  19. 19-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 15-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 82/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shanthamma v. Arbitrator and Others (AP 82/2024) Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the arbitral award and confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,660 per sq. meter awarded by the arbitrator. The court found the arbitrator properly considered the land's nature as undeveloped, alienated property when determining compensation for land acquired by the National Highways Authority of India. Key Reasoning: Although the court allowed the petitioner's application to condone the filing delay, it rejected the substantive challenge on merits. The petitioner failed to provide the approved layout plan despite claiming development efforts, and the arbitrator reasonably enhanced compensation by 40% based on the land's actual status as undeveloped converted land rather than accepting the petitioner's claim for Rs.2,000 per sq. meter based on a sale deed from a different location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case