Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Highway Authority Of India vs Darshan Singh And Others on 9 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048596
2024:PHHC:048596
FAO-6632-2023 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
116 FAO-6632-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision:-09.04.2024
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate for the appellant.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
CM-22995-CII-2023
1. Application is allowed as prayed for as deficiency in Court fee
has been made good.
Main Case
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") assailing order dated
02.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar,
whereby objections under Section 34 of the Act, have been dismissed as
being barred by time. Appeal is accompanied with an application for
condonation of delay of 83 days in its institution.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048596
2024:PHHC:048596
FAO-6632-2023 (O & M) -2-
3. Facts, in brief, may be noticed.
4. Land belonging to private respondents No.1 and 2 was intended
to be acquired for widening of National Highway No.1-A by the appellant
and Notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956,
was issued on 24.12.2004. It was followed by a declaration under Section 3-
D, ibid, on 11.07.2005. Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition
Collector, SDM, Dasua, respondent No.3, assessed the compensation for the
acquired land. Dissatisfied with the assessment, appellant invoked Section
3-G of the National Highways Act and by award dated 16.12.2020,
Annexure A-1, Arbitrator enhanced the compensation by assessing the
market value of the land at Rs.2 lac per marla and also awarded statutory
benefits to the land-owners. Appellant preferred objections under Section 34
of the Act, which have been dismissed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Jalandhar, vide order under challenge herein.
5. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Court has erred
in rejecting the objections as being barred by time as the limitation has to be
computed from the date when a signed copy of the award is received by the
appellant. He asserts that the objections were instituted within the period of
limitation provided under the Act.
6. I have considered the contentions of the counsel and have
examined the documents appended with the appeal with his able assistance.
7. Section 34 (3) of the Act provides a period of limitation of three
months from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award for preferring
objections, which may further be extended by another period of 30 days, if
the party challenging the award is able to show sufficient cause. The law in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048596
2024:PHHC:048596
FAO-6632-2023 (O & M) -3-
this regard is well-settled and reference can be made to the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Versus
M/s Popular Construction Company 2001 AIR SC 4010; M/s Consolidated
Engineering Enterprises Versus Principal Secretary, Irrigation
Department and others (2008) 7 SCC 169; M/s Simplex Infrastructure
Limited Versus Union of India 2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 205 and Mahindra
and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Verus Mahesh Bhai, Tina Bhai
Rathod and others (2022) 4 SCC 162. It has been held that as limitation is
prescribed in Section 34, ibid, the extent to which it can be condoned is
circumscribed and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1961 is not applicable to
condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the
Act.
8. Adverting to the factual position in the instant appeal, counsel
for the appellant could not give the specific date, on which, the signed copy
of the award was delivered or served upon the appellant. Perusal of the xerox
copy of the award, Annexure A-1, appended with the appeal shows that its
certified copy was prepared on 09.06.2021. Objections have been filed by
the appellant on 24.12.2021. The objections are clearly beyond the specified
period of limitation. Appellant has neither moved an application for
extension of time as provided in Section 34 (3) of the Act nor has he given
any reason for the delay. He has failed to show any sufficient cause in
approaching the Court at a belated stage. Even before this Court, counsel for
the appellant has not been able to advance any argument to explain the
delay.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048596
2024:PHHC:048596
FAO-6632-2023 (O & M) -4-
9. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
10. Consequently, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
11. Application for condonation of delay as well as other
miscellaneous applications are also dismissed as the main appeal has been
found to be meritless.
09.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
