Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________ vs Land Acquisition Officer & Anr on 10 January, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No.58 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 10.01.2024
_____________________________________________________________
Bhagat Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.
...Respondents
of
______________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1
__________________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General, with Mr. B.N. Sharma,
Additional Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General and Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents
No.1 & 2 respectively.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. In the present petition, a prayer has been made
by the petitioner to extend the time for completion of the
.
arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Reference Petition
No.317/18, pending before the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., exercising the
powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National
of
Highways Act, 1956.
3. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land
rt
acquisition in District Mandi, 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. The land of the petitioner has been acquired in
the present case vide Award No.16/2015-16 SNR, dated
01.09.2015.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the
landowner has preferred Arbitration Reference Petition
No.317/18, which is pending before the learned Arbitrator-
cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, and non-adjudication
of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has
resulted in filing of the instant petition.
5. The Reference Petition against the Award was filed
by the land owner long back. According to the petitioner,
.
repeated adjournments were granted by the learned
Arbitrator without caring for the time period and mandate
under Section 29A of the Act, which resulted in unnecessary
delay in the announcement of the award by the learned
of
Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District
Mandi, H.P. rt
6. This Court has gone through the order sheets
appended with the petition carefully and finds that the
proceedings have been conducted by the learned Arbitrator
in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Needless to mention
here 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 matter was adjourned by the learned
Arbitrator on one pretext or the other. This Court fails to
.
understand as to how the Arbitrator with such a callous
attitude can decide the arbitration proceedings knowing fully
well that if the proceedings are not completed within the
time stipulated in the Act, then unless the same is extended
of
by a Court of Law, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall stand
terminated. rt
7. However, at this stage, the Court is restraining
from making any further observation in the case save and
except that henceforth, if the Court finds the Arbitrator
derelicting his duties, then it shall not hesitate to invoke its
powers as enshrined in Section 29 (A) (6) of the 1996 Act, to
terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator, dehors the fact that
the Arbitrator happens to be appointed in terms of the
notification issued by the Central Government under Section
3G (a) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
8. In view of the above discussion, the instant
petition is allowed and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator
under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is
directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the
.
arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Petition No.317/18,
on or before 9th July, 2024.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
of
rt ( Sushil Kukreja )
January 10, 2023 Judge
(subhash)
