Bombay High Court
Project Director, N. H. A. Of India ... vs The Additional Commissioner, And ... on 3 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11332
1/16 aa-34-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2024
1. Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India
Ministry of Road Transport &
Highway Project Implementation Unit,
Nagpur-2 office at Bunglow No.2,
Shubhankar Apartment, Plot No. 159,
Ambazari Hill Top, Ram Nagar,
Nagpur 440 033
2. Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Road Transport and
Highway Department of Road, ... Appellants/
Transport and Highway, Bhawan No.1, Original Applicants u/s
Parliament Street, New Delhi. 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996
// VERSUS //
1. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur
and Arbitrator under the National
Highways Act, 1956. Having office at
Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440 001.
2. Deputy Collector/The Land
Acquisition Officer, General, Nagpur
and Competent Authority for
acquisition of land for National
Highway No. 69, Collector Building,
Civil Lines, Dist. Nagpur
3. Urmila Suryakant Thakur, ... Respondents/
Aged : 47 years, Occ.: Service, Original Non-Applicants
All R/o. Tilak Nagar, Thakur u/s 34 of Arbitration and
Apartment, Dist. Nagpur 440 010 Conciliation Act, 1996
Sknair
2/16 aa-34-24.odt
Shri Anish A. Kathane, Advocate for the appellants/original applicants.
Shri S.S.Hulke, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.
Shri N.A.Jachak, Advocate for respondent No.3/original non-applicant.
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
Reserved on : 15th October, 2025.
Pronounced on : 3rd November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
Heard. Admit.
2. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is preferred against the order dated 20 th
September 2023 in Arbitration Case No. 152/2022 passed by the learned
District Judge-10, Nagpur, whereby the order dated 23 rd November, 2021
passed by Respondent no. 1-Arbitrator, condoning the delay in filing the
application under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956
preferred by Respondent no.3, came to be upheld.
3. The Appellants submit that Appellants no. 1 is the Project
Director, National Highways Authority of India, conducting activities
under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Vide Gazette
Notification issued for the purpose of building, maintenance,
management and operation on the stretch of NH-7 relating to Village
Sknair
3/16 aa-34-24.odt
Khumari, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur, land was declared for
acquisition. Respondent no. 2 was declared as the Competent Authority
for land acquisition.
4. It is stated that Respondent no. 2 followed all parameters
required in law and passed an initial award dated 12 th February 2009. The
land acquired was from Survey No. 193/1(A) and Survey No. 193/2B,
admeasuring 0.2862 H.R. Thereafter, a revised award was passed on 16 th
October 2014, dividing the land and awarding compensation in the
names of the landowners, namely, Jainarayan Bholenath Mishra and
Shyamsundar Bholenath Mishra, for Survey No. 193/2B, for total land of
0.0862 H.R. The said land is the subject matter of the present dispute.
5. It is the case of the Appellants that Respondent no. 3, whose
name never appeared either in the award passed by the Competent
Authority or in the revised award, without any locus, filed an application
under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956 before Respondent no. 1 for
enhancement of compensation payable to the original landowners. This
application came to be registered as Arbitration Case No. 149/ARB/
2019-20.
Sknair
4/16 aa-34-24.odt
6. The Appellants further contend that there was an inordinate
delay of 10 years, 8 months and 20 days in filing the said application after
passing of the original award dated 12 th February, 2009 and the revised
award dated 16th October, 2014. Therefore, Respondent no. 3 moved an
application for condonation of delay.
7. The said application was vehemently opposed by the
Appellants, specifically on the ground that Respondent no. 3 has no title
over the acquired land. Her name never appeared in any of the revenue
records. Respondent no. 3 relied on a sale deed dated 9 th February, 2016,
executed by the subsequent purchasers of the original owners in her
favour. It is the case of the Appellants that the said sale deed was executed
subsequent to Section 3-A Notification dated 15 th March, 2005 under the
Act of 1956. Therefore, the sale being post-notification, Respondent no. 3
was not entitled to file any application for enhancement of compensation
before Respondent no. 1 - learned Arbitrator.
8. Respondent no. 1, the Learned Arbitrator, decided the
application filed by Respondent no. 3 vide order dated 23 rd November,
Sknair
5/16 aa-34-24.odt
2021 allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the
application under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956.
9. The order dated 23rd November, 2021 came to be challenged
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide
Arbitration Application No. 152/2022 before the learned District Judge-
10, Nagpur. Respondent no. 3 filed her reply to the said application on
30th August, 2022. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge-
10, Nagpur, vide order dated 20th September, 2023, rejected the
application filed by the Appellants, thereby upholding the order of
condonation of delay passed by Respondent no. 1- learned Arbitrator.
10. It is this order dated 20th September, 2023, passed by the
learned District Judge-10, Nagpur, in Arbitration Case No. 152/2022,
which is challenged in the present appeal.
11. This Court, vide order dated 16 th April 2024, issued notice to
the Respondents for final disposal. On the submission of the Appellants
that Respondent no. 1 was proceeding with the matter despite there being
a delay of 11 years, 8 months and 20 days in filing the application under
Sknair
6/16 aa-34-24.odt
Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956, proceedings before Respondent no. 1
were stayed. The said interim relief came to be continued thereafter.
12. The Respondents appeared in the matter and Respondent
no. 3 vehemently supported the orders passed by both the learned
Arbitrator and the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur.
13. I have heard learned counsel Shri A.A. Kathane for the
Appellants, learned AGP for Respondent no's. 1 and 2 and learned
counsel Shri N.A. Jachak for Respondent no. 3.
14. To strengthen his submissions, counsel for Appellants Shri
Kathane relied on the following judgments:
i. Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2024)
12 SCC 336,
ii. Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO, (2020) 19 SCC
236,
iii. Ninagappa v. LAO, (2020) 19 SCC 599,
iv. Executive Engineer & Ors. v. Gokul Kanungo, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1336,
Sknair
7/16 aa-34-24.odt
v. Dheeraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127,
vi. Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., (2014) 14
SCC 133.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:
15. It is specifically argued that Respondent no. 3 has no title
over the acquired land. In fact, the award passed by the Competent
Authority clearly depicts the names of Jaynarayan Mishra and
Shyamsundar Mishra as landowners. Even in the revised award dated 16 th
October, 2014, the name of Respondent no. 3 is not reflected. Hence, it is
argued that, Respondent no. 3 does not fall within the category of "either
of the parties" as contemplated under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act of 1956
and therefore, has no locus standi to seek enhancement of compensation.
16. It is further contended that the sale deed dated 9 th February,
2016 was executed subsequent to the Section 3-A Notification dated 15 th
March, 2005 and hence cannot confer any right upon Respondent no. 3
to seek enhancement. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay are
vague, unjustified and unsupported by evidence. The plea that
Respondent no. 3 came to know about the acquisition only on 7 th
Sknair
8/16 aa-34-24.odt
November, 2019 is argued to be false and untenable. The original
landowners were well aware of the acquisition and the awards passed.
17. It is also argued that all transactions relating to the acquired
land post Section 3-A Notification are void. The predecessors in title of
Respondent no. 3 were aware of the acquisition, and hence, the
subsequent transfer of land in favour of Respondent no. 3 cannot be
recognized. Therefore, it is submitted that the order condoning delay
passed by the learned Arbitrator and confirmed by the learned District
Judge-10, Nagpur, is legally infirm.
18. To substantiate its claims, the appellants have relied on
several authorities as mentioned supra. On the basis of authorities, it is
contented that when a case is presented in the Court beyond limitation,
sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason, preventing
the party to approach the Court within limitation, must be shown. In case
it is found that the party is negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part,
in the facts and circumstances of the case or found to have not acted
diligently or remain inactive, there cannot be justified ground to condone
the delay.
Sknair
9/16 aa-34-24.odt
19. Reliance placed by learned counsel for Appellants on
Huchanagouda (supra) relates to claim of interest for the period of delay.
Similar is the authority reported in Ninagappa (supra) viz., on the ground
of seeking parity and for claim of fair and just compensation as has been
awarded to other land owners. The authority cited in Gokul (supra) is
pointed out to contend that the interest was not awarded for a period of
delay in taking out proceedings for enhancement. Further reliance on
Dheeraj Singh (supra) is also on the issue of grant of interest during the
period of delay. As regards authority cited in Imrat Lal & Ors. (supra) is
concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in substance, has ruled to take a
lenient view for condonation of delay in the matters pertaining to land
acquisition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2:
20. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supported the order passed by Respondent no.1
and upholding of the same by the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur. It is
argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is rightly
condoned and therefore the order deserves to be maintained.
Sknair
10/16 aa-34-24.odt
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3:
21. Per contra, Shri N.A. Jachak, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 3, invited the Court's attention to the application
seeking condonation of delay, particularly to paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof,
wherein the reasons for the delay have been set out. The said paragraphs
are reproduced herein below:
2. It is submitted that for the first time the applicant came to know
about the acquisition of land and passing of the award only on 3/5/2019.
It is submitted that the predecessor in title of the land was also not aware
about the acquisition and the award so passed. It is further submitted
that the predecessor in title of the land in question was not served with
any notice by the non-applicants whatsoever, in respect of the acquisition
of land or possession thereof.
3. It is further submitted that as stated supra, the award in question
was not communicated or served to the applicant or her predecessor in
title prior to 7/11/2019. It is submitted that the payment of
compensation was paid on 8/11/2019 and the applicant have
acknowledge the payment under protest and applied for certified copy of
the award which have been supplied to the applicant on 21/11/2019. It is
therefore submitted that the application for arbitration is submitted
within limitation. As an abundant precaution, the applicant craves leave
of this Hon'ble authority to move present application for condonation of
delay, if any, to avoid any complication in the proceedings.
22. It is the case of Respondent no. 3 that she gained knowledge
of the acquisition and passing of the award only on 7 th November, 2019.
Sknair
11/16 aa-34-24.odt
Neither she nor her predecessors in title were ever served with notice of
acquisition or award. The award was never communicated to them prior
to 7th November, 2019. Compensation was paid on 8 th November, 2019
which was received by her under protest and a certified copy of the award
was obtained on 21st November, 2019. The application for enhancement,
along with a delay condonation plea, was filed immediately thereafter as a
matter of abundant caution.
23. It is therefore contended that the delay was reasonably and
satisfactorily explained and the Respondent no.1 - learned Arbitrator
rightly adopted a liberal approach consistent with facts and settled
principles in land acquisition cases.
FINDINGS:
24. I have perused the order of condonation of delay dated 23 rd
November, 2021 passed by Respondent no. 1 in Arbitration Case No.
149/ARB/2019-20 and the impugned judgment and order dated 20 th
September, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur in
Arbitration Application No. 152/2022. I have also gone through the
awards regarding acquisition of land.
Sknair
12/16 aa-34-24.odt
25. The Respondent no.1- learned Arbitrator has rightly observed
that Respondent no. 3 received payment of compensation pursuant to
notice dated 7th November, 2019, and the application for enhancement
was filed on 25th November, 2019. Considering that the award was never
communicated to Respondent no. 3 or her predecessors prior to that date,
and applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the application was
held to be within limitation. The Respondent no.1 also relied upon
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts
emphasizing a liberal approach in condonation of delay in land
acquisition cases.
26. The learned District Judge-10, Nagpur, upon independent
consideration, found that no documentary evidence was produced by the
Appellants to show that Respondent no. 3 or her predecessors were ever
served with the notice or informed about the passing of award. The Court
rightly held that the date of knowledge was 7 th November, 2019, and
therefore, the application filed thereafter was within the permissible
period.
Sknair
13/16 aa-34-24.odt
27. It was further rightly held that there was no dispute regarding
the acquisition under Section 3(D) of the Act of 1956, and that
Respondent no. 3 had stepped into the shoes of the original owners
without any contest. The learned Court also observed that the impugned
order does not fall under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 37
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and hence, the appeal is
not maintainable.
28. As regards, authority cited by the learned Counsel for
Appellants in Pathapati Reddy (supra), the same would not come to the
rescue of Appellants in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In
fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court observes in paragraph 13 and 14 as under :
"13. It is very elementary and well understood that courts
should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing
with the applications for condonation of the delay in filing
appeals and rather follow a pragmatic line to advance
substantial justice.
14. It may also be important to point out that though on one
hand, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be construed
liberally, but on the other hand, Section 3 of the Limitation
Act, being a substantive law of mandatory nature has to be
interpreted in a strict sense."
Sknair
14/16 aa-34-24.odt
So also, in Imrat Lal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held in
para 11 as under:
"11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the villagers
in our country are by and large illiterate and are not
conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually
guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the
proceedings in the courts or the advocates with whom they
get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in
support of the applications for condonation of delay are
usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half-baked
information made available by the affected persons.
Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for
award of just compensation, the court should adopt a liberal
approach and either grant time to the party to file a better
affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the
fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who
were affected by the determination of compensation by the
Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been
granted relief."
29. This makes it clear that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, liberal approach can be adopted and is rightly adopted by the
Respondent no.1 and the learned Court below. There appears no infirmity
with the order passed either by Respondent no.1 or vide impugned
judgment and order. In fact, it needs to be reiterated that it is a settled
position of law that in the matters of land acquisition mostly the land
owners are illiterate not having sufficient means and/or knowledge of the
Sknair
15/16 aa-34-24.odt
acquisition proceedings. While Respondent no.3 is a subsequent
purchaser, it has not come on record that notice of acquisition or passing
of award has ever been served on her or her predecessor in title.
Moreover, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that in November 2019,
she is called upon to receive compensation. Also, she has acted diligently
in applying for certified copies of the awards and subsequently in taking
out proceedings for enhancement immediately after receipt of certified
copies. As regards quantum of compensation and merits pertaining
thereto are concerned, it will certainly be open for parties to pursue the
matter on merits. At this stage, therefore, vis-à-vis the issue of delay,
condonation thereof is based on cogent and plausible reasoning.
CONCLUSION:
30. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that Respondent
no. 3 received knowledge of acquisition and passing of awards only on 7 th
November, 2019, and accepted compensation under protest on 8 th
November, 2019. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that any
prior notice of acquisition or passing of awards was served upon
Respondent no. 3 or her predecessors. Hence, the reasoning adopted by
Sknair
16/16 aa-34-24.odt
both the learned Arbitrator and the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur,
vide impugned judgment and order, is proper and calls for no
interference.
31. Accordingly, the appeal challenging the judgment and order
dated 20th September, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge-10,
Nagpur, in Arbitration Case No. 152/2022, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable
Sknair Judge
Date: 03/11/2025 15:55:04
