2026:CGHC:7239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 9 of 2026

1 - Ramlakhan Rathore S/o Shri Jeevanlal Rathore Aged About 64 Years R/o Village- Saragaon, Tehsil-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2 - Krishn Avtar S/o Shri Jeevanlal Rathore Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Saragaon, Tehsil-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Appellants versus Digitally signed by SHOAIBS A H N O W A A I R B ANWARD 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.10 1 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway

17:57:42 +0530 Bilaspur, Division, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) And Competent Authority Land Acquisition Champa, District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.)

3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellants : Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UoI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondents/State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

10/02/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, application for condonation of delay of 376 days in filing this arbitration appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the land of the appellants was acquired for widening of the National Highway and an award was passed on 30.07.2016. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant referred the matter under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1996 to the Arbitrator, who passed an award on 10.11.2017, directing re- evaluation of compensation in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Valuation Board, Raipur (C.G.) for the year 2015-16. Aggrieved by the said arbitral award, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 34 of the Madhyastha Evam Sulah Adhiniyam, 1996, registered as Misc. Civil Suit No.23/2019, which was allowed by the learned Third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), thereby setting aside the arbitral award dated 10.11.2017. Hence this appeal, assailing the impugned order as illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 376 days in filing the appeal. It is contended that the impugned order was passed earlier and the appeal came to be filed on 11.08.2025, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The delay has occurred on account of paucity of funds, lack of procedural knowledge, and certain personal difficulties faced by the appellant, due to which he could not approach this Court within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the appellant is a lay person and was dependent upon legal advice, and the delay has neither been caused deliberately nor with any malafide intention. Learned counsel submits that the mistake, if any, is bonafide in nature and that the appellant has a good case on merits. It is also argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the delay is condoned and, therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ UoI, by filing reply of the delay application, opposes the application and submits that the delay of 376 days has not been satisfactorily explained and the grounds urged are vague and general in nature, which do not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is contended that the appellant has been grossly negligent in prosecuting the matter and the application has been filed only to overcome the statutory bar of limitation.

(b) In support of his contention, he would place reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharasthra (Water Resources Department) vs. Borse Borthers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460. In the said decision, the Supreme