Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanderwati vs Land Acquisition Collector Dro And Ors on 19 September, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123892
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M) and connected case -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(106)
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M)
Smt. Chanderwati ...Appellant
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO and another ...Respondents
FAO-2695-2021 (O&M)
Smt. Chanderwati ...Appellant
Versus
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO and another ...Respondents
Date of decision:- 19.09.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant (in both the cases).
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
CM-11369-CII-2021 IN FAO-2589-2021 AND
CM-14440-CII-2021 IN FAO-2695-2021
For the reasons given in the applications, they are allowed.
Delay in refiling the appeals is condoned.
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M) AND FAO-2695-2021 (O&M)
1. This order shall dispose of both the above noted appeals, as they
involve common questions of law and facts. For the sake of convenience,
factual position is being taken from FAO-2589-2021.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123892
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M) and connected case -2-
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") assailing order dated
02.07.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, have been dismissed, as
being barred by limitation. Appeal is accompanied with an application for
condonation of delay of 67 days, in its filing.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that land belonging
to the appellant was intended to be acquired for development of National
Highway NE-11 (Eastern Peripheral Express Highway) and Notification under
Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, was issued on 02.12.2007,
which was followed by a declaration under Section 3-D, ibid, on 21.03.2007.
Competent Authority-cum-DRO, Faridabad, assessed the compensation for the
acquired land. Dissatisfied with the assessment, appellant invoked Section 3-G
of the National Highways Act, 1956, and by award dated 05.02.2016,
Arbitrator enhanced the compensation, and also awarded additional 10%
towards easmentary rights to the landowner. Appellant preferred objections
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which have been dismissed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide order impugned herein.
4. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State
of Maharashtra and others Versus M/s. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (4) SCC
616, 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123892
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M) and connected case -3-
appellant. He asserts that the objections were instituted within the period of
limitation provided under the Arbitration Act.
5. I have considered the contentions of the counsel and have examined
the documents appended with the appeal with his able assistance.
6. Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act provides a period of limitation
of three months from the date of delivery 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 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.
7. 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 appended with the appeal shows that its certified copy was prepared
and delivered on 05.02.2016. Objections have been filed by the appellant on
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123892
FAO-2589-2021 (O&M) and connected case -4-
10.04.2017. 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 Arbitration Act, nor has she given any reason
for the delay. Appellant 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.
8. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.
9. Consequently, both the appeals sans merit, and are hereby dismissed.
10. Applications for condonation of delay in filing are also dismissed as
the main appeals have been found to be meritless.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
19.09.2024
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
4 of 4
