Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HEMANT GUPTA, RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ.
BIR SINGH – Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CWP No. 25420 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-10-2015
For the Appellant :R.S. Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Deepak Verma and Sameer Nandwani, Advocate.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Application for Appointment of Arbitrator - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3G - No period of limitation prescribed for moving an application for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government. The application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not akin to a suit governed by the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 137 of the Limitation Act is a residuary Article which is applicable for moving an application before the Court for which no period of limitation is prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963. Such provision would not be applicable as the application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not to be filed before the Civil Court. The Arbitrator is to be appointed by the Central Government on an application of either of the parties. Therefore, there cannot be any period of limitation in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reasonable period for moving an application can be said to be three years from the date the cause of action arose. In the absence of any period of limitation, the intervention of a statutory functionary is required to be sought within a reasonable period. An aggrieved person cannot move an application at any point of time. The reasonable period for moving an application can be said to be three years from the date of cause of action arose. The reasonable period of time to seek intervention of the Central Government would be three years within which a grievance is required to be made regarding determination of the amount of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The land of the petitioners was made subject matter of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Competent Authority determined the compensation, and some landowners disputed the determination and sought appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioners sought enhancement of compensation after more than three years of announcing the Award, which was declined by the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there is no period of limitation prescribed for moving an application for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government. The application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not akin to a suit governed by the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reasonable period for moving an application can be said to be three years from the date the cause of action arose. In the absence of any period of limitation, the intervention of a statutory functionary is required to be sought within a reasonable period, which can be said to be three years from the date of cause of action arose.
Issues: The main issue was whether there is a period of limitation prescribed for moving an application for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for moving an application for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government. The application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not akin to a suit governed by the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reasonable period for moving an application can be said to be three years from the date the cause of action arose.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order passed by the Central Government declining the reference to Arbitrator for determination of the amount of compensation and directed the respondents to pay the compensation to the landowners in terms of the Award finalised in respect of the other landowners.
Hemant Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned four writ petitions, wherein the challenge is to an order dated 11.05.2012, whereby an application to seek enhancement of compensation by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government was declined. For facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 25420 of 2012.
2. The land of the petitioners was made subject matter of acquisition by virtue of a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') dated 2.1.2007. The notification under Section 3D of the Act was published on 21.03.2007 and the Competent Authority determined the compensation @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 4.3.2008.
3. Some of the land owners disputed the determination of the amount of compensation and sought appointment of an Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 3G(5) of the Act soon after the Award was announced. The Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government awarded Rs. 36,50,000/- per acre vide Award dated 13.01.2012.
4. The petitioners were disbursed the amount of compensation on 31.01.2009. They submitted an application for enhancement of compensation amount of compensation in the year 2012 but after more than three years of announcing of the Award on 4.3.2008. The said application has been declined by the Central Government vide order impugned in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is no period of limitation prescribed to seek appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act. Therefore, an application filed within three years of the date of disbursement of the amount of compensation is within the period of limitation. Such application could not be declined for the reason that it is barred by limitation. It is also argued that in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Imrat Lal v. Collector (LA), (2014) 14 SCC 133, the similarly situated land owners are entitled to same amount of compensation. Thus, the petitioners, even if have sought enhancement of compensation after some delay but still the petitioners are entitled to the same amount of compensation.
6. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that it is Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which would be applicable. Said Article prescribes the period of three years from the date the cause of action arose for the purpose of filing of the suit. It is argued that filing of an application for appointment of an Arbitrator is akin to the filing of suit, therefore, the period of limitation commences from the date of Award.
7. To appreciate the argument raised, Section 3G of the Act needs to be examined. The said Section reads as under :-
"3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation :-
(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under subsection (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspaper, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(5) If the amo
