Amar Singh And Ors vs The Land Acquisition ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4059 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051653




                                 2023:PHHC:051653
CM-6573-CII-2020 in/and
FAO-2387-2020 (O&M)                                    -1-


267   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                 CM-6573-CII-2020 in/and
                                 FAO-2387-2020 (O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: 13th April, 2023

Amar Singh and others                                ... Appellants
                          Versus

The Land Acquisition Collector/DRO and another ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:     Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

                       ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)

1. This appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act') is filed aggrieved of dismissal of

objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act as time barred. This appeal is

accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing and

refiling of the appeal.

2. Brief facts are that land of the applicant/appellant was

acquired under the Act for development of National Highway No. NE-11

Eastern Periphery Express Highways Faridabad. The appellants were

dissatisfied with the compensation determined by competent authority and

arbitration was initiated at their instance. The proceedings culminated in

award dated 5.2.2016. The appellant on 10th April, 2017 filed the

objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act accompanied by an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the 1963

Act') for condoning the delay in filing the objections. The objections were

dismissed on 2.7.2019 as time barred, hence, the present appeal.

                                    1 of 3

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051653




                                 2023:PHHC:051653
CM-6573-CII-2020 in/and
FAO-2387-2020 (O&M)                                     -2-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Additional

District Judge erred in not condoning the delay in filing the objections.

4. In the impugned order, it is recorded that award was

announced in the presence of learned counsel for the parties. The appellant

had received the payments in pursuance to the arbitral award on 6.5.2016.

4. It would be appropriate to note that the only ground raised in

this appeal for challenging the impugned order dismissing the objections as

time barred is ground 12 which is reproduced below :-

'That the Learned Additional Judge, failed to taken into consideration provisions of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act and wrongly rejected the objections filed by the appellants on the technical ground of limitation. Hence, the finding of the Ld. Additional District Judge are liable to be set aside.'

5. It would be relevant to note that in application under Section 5

of 1963 Act, it was pleaded that appellants were not aware of limitation for

filing objections and that delay was not intentional.

6. The law is well-settled that application of Section 5 of the

1963 Act is ousted by proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act. Reference

in this regard is made to Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v.

Ms. Popular Construction Co., AIR 2001 SC 4011 and M/s

Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt.

and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169.

7. The date of receipt of arbitral award by the appellant has not

been disclosed. The most relevant fact has been withheld by the appellant

in appeal. It is not the case set up that objections under Section 34 of the

1996 Act were filed without annexing the copy of the award.

                                    2 of 3

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051653




                                   2023:PHHC:051653
CM-6573-CII-2020 in/and
FAO-2387-2020 (O&M)                                      -3-

8. As per Section 34(3) of the Act the objections can be filed

within three months of receipt of arbitral award and under proviso to

Section 34(3) delay upto thirty days in filing objections can be condoned.

9. It was not the case of the appellant that delay was upto thirty

days and covered under proviso to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act. The

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act was sought on the

ground that the appellants were not aware of limitation period.

10. It was rightly held in impugned order that delay in filing the

objections under Section 34 of 1996 Act can be condoned only as per

proviso to Section 34(3) and not under Section 5 of 1963 Act. The

appellant has neither pleaded nor averred that delay was less than thirty

days. The date of receipt of copy of award has been withheld. No case is

made out for interference in impugned order under Section 37 of the 1996

Act.

11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.

12. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending

application(s), if any is rendered infructuous.

                                               (AVNEESH JHINGAN )
                                                    JUDGE
13th April, 2023
anuradha          Whether reasoned/speaking            Yes
             Whether reportable                        Yes




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051653

                                      3 of 3