Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hazari Lal (Since Deceased) Through His ... vs Dro Cum Land Acquisition ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151385
FAO-3430-2019(O&M)
-1-
224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3430-2019(O&M)
Date of Order:-19.11.2024
Hazari Lal (since deceased) through his LRs
...Appellants
Versus
DRO - cum - Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority and
another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present :- Mr.Rishav Soni, Advocate for
Mr.Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
CM-11992-CII-2019
1. Exemption, as prayed for, is granted.
2. Application is allowed.
CM-11993-CII-2019
3. Application is allowed, as prayed for.
MAIN CASE
4. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act")
assailing order dated 18.12.2018, passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Palwal, whereby objections under Section 34 of the Act, have
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151385
FAO-3430-2019(O&M)
been dismissed, as being barred by limitation.
5. Facts, in brief, may be noticed.
6. Land belonging to the appellants was intended to be
acquired for development of National Highway NE-II (Eastern
Peripheral Expressway) and Notification under Section 3-A of the
National Highways Act, 1956, was issued on 21.01.2007, which was
followed by a declaration under Section 3-D, ibid, on 21.03.2007.
Competent Authority-cum-DRDA, Faridabad, assessed the
compensation for the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the assessment,
appellants invoked Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, and by
award dated 02.09.2015, Arbitrator enhanced the compensation, and
also awarded additional 10% under Section 3 (G) 2, ibid, to the
landowners. Appellants preferred objections under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, which have been dismissed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Palwal, vide order impugned herein.
7. Counsel for the appellants 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 appellants. He asserts that the objections were instituted
within the period of limitation provided under the Act.
8. I have considered the contentions of the counsel and have
examined the documents appended with the appeal with his able
assistance.
9. Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151385
FAO-3430-2019(O&M)
another period of 30 days, if the party challenging the award is able to
show sufficient cause. The law in 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; 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 MaheshBhai, TinaBhai
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, 1963, is not
applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under
Section 34 (3) 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 was delivered or served upon the appellants.
Perusal of the copy of the award appended with the appeal shows that it
was announced on 02.09.2015 in the presence of counsel for the parties.
Objections have been filed by the appellants on 11.04.2016. The
objections are clearly beyond the specified period of limitation.
Appellants have neither moved an application for extension of time, as
provided in Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration 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 appellants has not been able to advance any argument to explain
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151385
FAO-3430-2019(O&M)
the delay.
11. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal.
12. Consequently, the appeal sans merit, and is hereby
dismissed.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
19.11.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
