K.L. Manjunath, J.— Heard Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayan, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Government Advocate for R-2. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 63881/2012 and 63913-15/2012 dated 29/8/2012, wherein, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:-

The appellant"s land was notified for the benefit of the National Highway Authority under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act, for widening the National Highway No. 13 at Amaravathi Village of Hospet Taluk. Preliminary notification was issued on 7/3/2011 and final notification was issued on 8/8/2011 and thereafter, the Competent Authority, respondent No. 3, determined the compensation payable to the acquired land at the rate of ^ 2,583.6/- per sq. mtrs., by considering the lands as non agricultural land and awarded a total compensation of ^ 78,48,976/-,

3. Thereafter, the National Highway Authority of India-first respondent herein, moved an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act 1956, to re-determine the compensation by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The second respondent-Deputy Commissioner-Bellary, was appointed by the Central Government for re-determining the market value as Arbitrator. The appellant appeared before the Arbitrator and raised an objections in regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 3G(5), contending that the same was barred by limitation. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the application filed by the National Highway Authority was maintainable and not barred by limitation. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant was rejected. The appellant filed the writ petitions challenging the said order. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions on the ground that the limitation to file an application under Section 3G(5) of the Highways Act would fall under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and an application can be filed for re-determination of the market value, within a period of three years. Accordingly, petitions were dismissed. Challenging the same, these appeals are filed.

4. Mr. S.N. Ashwathnarayan, Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Arbitrator as well as the Learned Single Judge have committed a serious error in holding that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, would apply to the Provision of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. According to him, Article 119 of the Limitation Act would apply to the facts of the case and without considering the case of the parties in a proper perspective, the Learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing petitions. Taking us through the Provision of Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the Arbitrator as well as the Learned Single Judge.

5. The Learned Government Advocate contends that Article 119 of the Limitation Act 1963, would apply only if an award is filed for confirmation or for setting aside or for modification of an award passed by an Arbitrator. When there is no award and when the award is not questioned, Article 119 would not attract and as rightly held by the Learned Single Judge, Article 137 would cover the facts of this case. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeals.

6. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in these appeals is whether, under the facts and circumstances. Article 119 of the Limitation Act or Article 137 would attract to consider an application filed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.

7. In order to appreciate the facts of the case, it would be appropriate for us to consider the provision of 3G(5) of the National Highways Act which reads as hereunder:

3G(5)-If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-Section (1) or sub-Sec