Anita Kumari Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.119 of 2026 Decided on: 04.06.2026

Anita Kumari ….Petitioner Versus The Land Acquisition Officer, NHAI & others ...Respondents Coram

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

For the petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shivanshu, Advocate, vice Mr. Komal Preet Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.3.

¶5

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral)

¶6

Notice.

¶7

Mr. Shivanshu, learned vice counsel and Mr. B.S.

¶8

Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶9

The present petition under Section 29-A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No.1254 of 2017, titled

¶10

2

¶11

as Anita Kumari vs. Collector Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowner has preferred Arbitration Case No.1254 of 2017, National Highways Authority of India-cumDivisional 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.

¶14

The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the landowner in the year 2017. 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 Indiacum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

¶15

3

¶16

This Court has gone through the material available

¶17

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.

¶18

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 Case No.1245 of 2017, on or before 4^th December, 2026. The aforesaid liberty is granted to the

¶19

4

¶20

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

¶21

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶22

terms.

¶23

( Romesh Verma ) Judge

¶24

June 04, 2026