Arbitration awards must be issued within prescribed time limits. If the period exceeds without consent or extension from the Court, the award can be invalidated.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

The present appeal is maintained by the appellants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”), against the judgment dated 04.12.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Arbitration Petition No. 49 of 2018, whereby, award dated 28.11.2017, passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, was set aside.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Central Government issued a notification dated 21.04.2012 for acquisition of the land comprised in revenue estate, Chamukha, Hadbast No. 41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. qua f our laning of National Highway 21 on the stretch ofo land from Kms. 126.500 to Kms. 188.917 (Bilaspur-Ner Chowk Section). The aforesaid notification under Section 3(A) (1) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (for short “Act”) was published in the official Gazette on 21.04.2012, in Tribune and Amar Ujala on 22.05.2012 and in Times of India & Divya Himachal on 17.09.2012. The publication was made in the locality and entries No. 50, dated 09.10.2012 and 408, dated 07.06.2012 were made in Patwar Halqua Churad. The notification under Sub Section 1 of Section 3D of the Act was published in the official Gazette on 01.04.2013, the Tribune and Dainik Bhaskar on 14.01.2013, Punjab Kesari and Hindustan Times on 14.01.2013. It was published in the locality and entries No. 243, dated 02.03.2013, 190, dated 01.02.2013 and 358, dated 31.05.2013 were made in the Patwar Halqua Churad. The notification under Sub Section 3 of Section 3G of the Act was published in the Tribune on 14.01.2013, Dainik Jagran on 22.02.2013. The competent authority assessed the market value of the acquired land as Rs. 50,000/- per bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective of their classification and nature. o

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award passed by the competent authority, a reference was made under Section 3G(5) of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The learned Arbitrator vide common award dated 28.11.2017, allowed the petitions filed by the petitioners by holding that the claimants shall be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the entire compensation amount of the acquired property including structures/buildings wherever applicable and 9% interest on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of taking possession of land and structures, till actual deposit. The claimants were also held entitled for the compensation of trees as per assessment, if any, made by the expert who is technically qualified for the purpose.

4. The appellants individually preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “A & C Act”) before the learned District Judge, Mandi. However, vide common judgment dated 04.12.2021, the learned District Judge, Mandi had s et aside the award of the learned Arbitrator on thoe ground that the learned Arbitrator had erred in proceeding with the matter after the expiry of one year without taking consent or without seeking an extension from the Court as required under Section 29A of A & C Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record carefully.

6. It is not in dispute that petition filed by the appellants was received on 23.11.2015 while the award was pronounced on 28.11.2017, i.e. after the period of more than two years. It is also not in dispute that Section 3G (6) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT provides that provisions of A & C Act governs the arbitration proceedings conducted under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT .

7. Sect