Shaffique, J.

1. Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant who challenges the judgment dated 15/10/2014 in W.P.C.No.26788/2014.

2. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 and for a direction to the 1st respondent to entertain Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and proceed with Arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NH Act') and to pass an award as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the property having an extent of 6.10 Ares in Survey No.8/18 and 0.35 Ares in Survey No.8/19A of Panancheri village was acquired by the National Highway authorities invoking the provisions under the NH Act. The notification under Section 3D of the Act was issued on 21/10/2005, declaration was published on 20/10/2006 and the competent authority determined the compensation at Rs.15,44,984/-, which was paid to the petitioner on 16/04/2010. Possession was also taken on the same day. Ext.P1 is the award with reference to the proceedings initiated as L.A.C.No.1128/2009.

4. Petitioner submitted an application dated 10/05/2013 under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act seeking reference of the matter to Arbitration and claiming enhanced compensation. Ext.P2 dated 10/05/2013 is the said application. By Ext.P3 letter dated 07/03/2014, the Arbitrator informed the petitioner that her application cannot be entertained as the same is barred by limitation. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 inter alia contending that the NH Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not provide any period of limitation for making application to refer the dispute to Arbitration and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application. It is neither a Civil court nor has the trappings of the Civil Court and therefore the authority was under obligation to entertain the reference and adjudicate on the claim made by the petitioner.

5. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself whereby the learned Single Judge, having formed an opinion that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to the Arbitration under the NH Act, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained and the authority was justified in rejecting the application as barred by limitation.

6. It is, impugning the aforesaid judgment, that this appeal has been filed inter alia reiterating the contentions urged.

7. We have heard Sri.George Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, learned senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though Limitation Act applies to the Arbitral proceedings, there is no statutory provision enabling the Arbitrator to reject an application for referring the dispute to Arbitration, as barred by limitation. No such limitation has been provided under the NH Act. That apart, even assuming that the claim was barred by limitation, in so far as the request for reference is only an application, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies and the petitioner was entitled to submit an application to condone the delay in submitting the application. It is contended that the 1st respondent had the power to condone the delay and therefore an opportunity ought to have been granted to make an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his contentions.

i) Union of India v. Gopalan [1986 KLT 1279]. By this Division Bench judgment, this Court held that no specific period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and therefore Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies. In such circumstances, the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked by the parties.

ii) State of Kerala v. Madhusoodanan Pillai [1994(1) KLT 268] is relied upon wherein another Division Bench of this Cou