IMPORTANT POINT
As right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of Constitution of India, appellant cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

OMP(M) No. 63 of 2023

By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered. The application stands disposed of.

3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.

4. By way of this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’), the appellant has challenged judgment dated 17.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Arbitration Petition No.72 of 2019, titled as National Highways Authority of India versus Kanihya Lal and another, in terms whereof, the Arbitration Petition was allowed by the learned District in the following terms:-

“In view of the above, the present application(s) is allowed and an award dated 23.03.2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator is set aside. However, this will not prevent any of the parties from applying for the extension of time, if otherwise legally admissible. Original order be placed in Arbitration Petition No.73 of 2019 [titled NHAI vs. Kanhiya Lal] and authenticated copy thereof be placed in the other consolidated Arbitration petition(s). Memo of costs be prepared. The record of the learned Arbitrator along with a copy of this judgment be returned and the record of this Court, after due completion, be consigned to the record room.”

5. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that Central Government issued a Notification on 21.04.2012 for the purpose of acquisition of the land comprised in Revenue Estate Dehar, Hadbast No.75, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the purpose of four laning of National Highway-21. The Notification under Section 3(A) (1) of the NHAI Act, 1956 was published in the official gazette on 21.04.2012. The Notification under Section 3(G)(3) of the said Act was published in the newspapers ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 22.05.2012. After complying with the other statutory authority, the Competent Authority assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.35/- lac per bigha for all kind irrespective of the classification and nature. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Competent Authority, the land owner made a Reference under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for enhancement of compensation. According to the landlord, the determination of the value of the acquired land @ Rs.35 lac per bigha was unfair, inadequate and unjust as the market value of the said land was more than Rs.1.00/- Crore per bigha at the time of the issuance of the notification of acquisition. The Reference was answered by the learned Arbitrator vide award dated 22.03.2019, by ordering the enhancement of the compensation to Rs.36.00/- lac per bigha and also ordered payment of 30% solatium and 9% interest thereon to the appellants.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the National Highways Authority of India preferred Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which has been decided by the learned District Judge in terms of the impugned judgment.

7. In terms of the provisions of Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the award is to be made within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference and the parties may by consent in terms of sub-section (3) thereof extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. Learned District Judge held that herein as the award was announced by the learned Arbitrator after the expiry of one year and without their being any express consent of the parties to extend the period of making the award, therefore, the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. I have h