“26. The High Powered Committee dismissed the representation of the Claimant on 05.09.2008. Thereafter the objection of the Claimant under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was also dismissed on 27.03.2012. Thereafter, the Claimant filed Section 9 petition before the Ld. ADJ, Karnal for seeking the compensation awarded to the Respondents. The Ld. ADJ dismissed the Section 9 petition on 24.05.2012 and held that the land owned and possessed by the Respondents vested with the Govt and that there could not be a lawful agreement in favour of the Claimant for the land in question. From the above facts, it is evident that uptil 2012, parties were making efforts to transfer land to the Claimant. In my opinion, the cause of action in favour of the Claimants for recovering the amounts paid to the Respondents arose for the first time when the Ld. ADJ dismissed the Section 9 petition of the Claimant and held that there could not be a lawful agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent as the Award had already been passed and the land did not vest with the Respondents . Until this time, the Claimant believed and was given an impression by the Respondents that the land was vesting with the Respondents and that they had every right to legally transfer the land to the Claimants. However, once the decision of the Ld. ADJ was rendered on the Section 9 petition, it became clear to the Claimant that no transfer of the land could take place in their favour, at that point in time, a right accrued in favour of the Claimant for recovering back the amounts paid to the Respondent. Thereafter, the Claimant within the prescribed time period, initiated the arbitration process in February 2013
