ORDER

1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the lands bearing Khasra No.918 admeasuring 0.886 hectare, Khasra No.919 admeasuring 0.458 hectare and Khasra No.922 admeasuring 1.023 hectares, situated in village Pali, Municipal Council, Birsinghpur Pali, Ward No.4, Police Station and Tahsil Pali, District Umaria (M.P.). That the respondent No.3 namely Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation acquired 0.477 hectare in part of Khasra No.918 area 0.886 hectare, 0.010 hectare in part of Khasra No.919 area 0.458 hectare and 0.010 hectares in part of Khasra No.922 area 1.023 hectares. An award was passed on 30.7.2015, wherein the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs.10,39,638/- for area 0.477 hectare, Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectare and Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectares. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of award, the petitioner challenged the same under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") before the learned Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shahdol Division, Shahdol. He also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay, if any, in challenging the said award. The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Arbitrator is bad in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. That there is a delay of about 4 years in challenging the award. That in terms of section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996"), the petitioner had to file an application within 3 years from the date of the award.

3. The same has been filed after 4 years. The reason explained for condoning the delay requires to be accepted by the Arbitrator. Failure to do so and dismissing the application for condonation of delay has, therefore, led to gross miscarriage of justice. The same is disputed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. It is contended that various Courts have held that in absence of specifying a period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, it was construed that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable. The same confers a limitation of 3 years for filing the appeal. Therefore, the Courts having taken such a view, the Arbitrator was justified in passing the award. Hence, no interference is called for.

4. Heard learned counsels.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. Nortel Networks India Private Limited, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 738, held in para 21 to the effect that it would be necessary for the Parliament to effect an amendment in section 11 of the Act of 1996 prescribing a specified period of limitation within which a party may move the Court for making an application for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Act of 1996 in view of the reason that the same does not provide for any limitation.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Of icer, Bangalore v. Thakoredas, Major, reported in 1994 Legal Eagle (SC) 172 has held that since there is no limitation prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference limitation will be attracted under the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and therefore, an application seeking a reference must be made within three years of the expiry of 90 days from the date of the award.

7. The High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 30.3.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.226 of 2015 (K. Leela v. The District Collector and Arbitrator and another) held in para 19 to the effect that as there is no specific period provided for making a claim seeking higher co