Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Lal (Deceased) Through His Lrs vs Dro-Cum-Land Acquisition ... on 11 November, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148398
FAO-2014-2019(O&M) and
FAO-2217-2019(O&M)
214 (2 CASES) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) FAO-2014-2019(O&M)
Ganga Lal (since deceased) through his LRs
...Appellants
Versus
DRO - cum - Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority and
another
...Respondents
(2) FAO-2217-2019(O&M)
Rajender Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
DRO - cum - Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority and
another
...Respondents
Date of decision:-11.11.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr.Rishav Soni, Advocate and
Mr.Nikhil Lohia, Advocate for
Mr.Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants in both cases.
Mr.D.K. Singal, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in both cases.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
CM-6198-CII-2019 in
FAO-2014-2019
&
CM-6734-CII-2019 in
FAO-2217-2019
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148398
FAO-2014-2019(O&M) and
FAO-2217-2019(O&M)
214 (2 CASES) -2-
1. Exemption, as prayed for, is granted.
2. Applications are allowed.
MAIN CASES
3. This order shall dispose of both the above-noted appeals as
they involve common questions of law and fact. For the sake of
convenience, factual position is being taken from FAO-2014-2019.
4. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act') assailing
judgment dated 18.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Palwal, whereby application for condonation of delay and
consequently, objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have
been dismissed.
5. Factual matrix leading to the filing of the appeal is that the
appellants are owners of land, which has been acquired by the respondents
for construction of Eastern Peripheral Express Highway vide notification
dated 21.03.2007 issued under Section 3 (D) of the National Highways
Act, 1956. The competent authority announced award dated 04.03.2008
assessing the compensation for the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the
assessment, appellants filed reference for enhancement of compensation,
which was culminated in passing of award dated 02.09.2015 by the
Arbitrator - cum - ADC, Palwal. Appellants preferred objections under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, alongwith application for condonation
of delay, which have been rejected by order impugned herein.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148398
FAO-2014-2019(O&M) and
FAO-2217-2019(O&M)
214 (2 CASES) -3-
6. While inviting attention of the Court to Section 34(3) of the
Arbitration Act, counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Additional District Judge has failed to exercise the power vested in it for
condonation of delay. He asserts that the objections preferred by the
appellants were within the time as prescribed under the Arbitration Act.
7. Counsel for the respondents submits that the objections were
filed beyond the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act and have rightly been rejected by the learned Additional
District Judge.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
9. Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act provides a period of
limitation of three months for preferring objections from the date of
delivery of the signed copy of the Award to the appellant, which can be
further extended by another period of 30 days, if the party challenging the
Award is able to show sufficient cause. This is the settled legal position.
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 Versus Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod and others, (2022) 4 SCC
162, the Supreme Court has held that the limitation for filing objections is
prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the extent to which
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148398
FAO-2014-2019(O&M) and
FAO-2217-2019(O&M)
214 (2 CASES) -4-
it can be condoned is also circumscribed. It has been clarified that Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to condone the delay
beyond the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act.
The result is that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
is ousted by proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
10. Adverting to the factual position in the instant appeal,
counsel for the appellants could not give the specific date, on which, the
signed copy of the award dated 02.09.2015 was delivered or served upon
the appellants. Perusal of the copy of the award appended with the appeal
shows that it was passed in the presence of counsel for the appellants, but
the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been instituted
by them on 11.04.2016. The ground that the appellants, who are rustic,
were not aware of the limitation period, will not cut any ice. Although an
application for condonation of delay has been moved, but in view of the
settled legal position, noticed above, application is not maintainable.
Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, which is
affirmed.
11. Consequently, both the appeals sans merit and are hereby
dismissed.
11.11.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
