Amar Singh And ORS v. Land Acquisition Collector/Dro And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (109) Date of decision:- 12.11.2024 AMAR SINGH AND ORS ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR-CUM-DRO AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana for the respondent No.1. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) CM-6683-CII-2020 1.

For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed. 2.

Delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. FAO-2498-2020 (O&M) 3.

This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") assailing order dated 12.04.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby objections under Section 34 of the Act, preferred by the appellants, have been dismissed, as being barred by limitation. Appeal is accompanied with an application (CM-6684-CII-2020) for condonation of delay of 152 days, in its filing.

4.

Facts, in brief, may be noticed.

5.

Land belonging to the appellants was intended to be acquired for development of National Highway NE-II (Eastern Peripheral Express

-2Highway) and notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, was issued on 02.01.2007, 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, appellants invoked Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, and by award dated 05.02.2016, Arbitrator enhanced the compensation, and also awarded additional 10% towards easmentary rights to the landowners. Appellants preferred objections under Section 34 of the Act, which have been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide order impugned herein.

6.

Counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned ADJ 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. 7.

I have considered the contentions of the counsel and have examined the documents appended with the appeal with his able assistance. 8.

Section 34 (3) of the 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,

-3Irrigation 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 Ver s us 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 Act.

9.

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 xerox copy of the award appended with the appeal shows that its certified copy was prepared and delivered on 05.02.2016. Appellants received the payment of the awarded amount on 06.05.2016 and objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been instituted by them on 10.04.2017. The ground that the appellants were not aware of the limitation period, will not cut any ice. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.

10.

Consequently, the appeal sans merit, and is hereby dismissed. 11.

Application for condonation of delay in filing is also dismissed as the main appeal has been found to be meritless. 12.11.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL) Kamal JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No