Narender Kumar and Others Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority and Others

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.118 of 2026 Decided on: 04.06.2026

¶2

Narender Kumar & others ….Petitioners

¶3

Versus

¶4

Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority & others

¶5

...Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the petitioners: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shivanshu, Advocate, vice Mr. Komal Preet Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶9

Ms. Vandana Misra, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3.

¶10

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral)

¶11

Notice.

¶12

Mr. Shivanshu, learned vice counsel and Ms.

¶13

Vandana Misra, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶14

The present petition under Section 29-A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No.29 of

¶15

2

¶16

2024, titled as Narender Kumar & others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways Authorty of India, pending before the National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶17

The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Kullu, H.P. for the purpose of construction of the National Highway, land for which has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowners have preferred Arbitration Reference Case No.29 of 2024, National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

¶19

The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the landowners in the year 2024. According to the petitioner, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, the same has resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

¶20

3

¶21

This Court has gone through the material available

¶22

on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the view that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed.

¶23

In view of aforesaid discussions and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, the National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 (G) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.29 of 2024, on or before 4^th December, 2026. The aforesaid liberty is granted

¶24

4

¶25

to the petitioners as a matter of indulgence, being the last and final opportunity.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶27

terms.

¶28

( Romesh Verma ) Judge

¶29

June 04, 2026