2026:CGHC:16370 NAFR Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2 1 0 7 2 :1 6 1 .0 :2 4 7 .09 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 ARBA No. 80 of 2025 Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Zone, NH Campus Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.), Through Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Chameli Bai W/o W/o Shri Kartikram Aged About 50 Years R/o Masaniyakala, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-Cum-Competent Authority Under Land Acquisition, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(The cause title is as per the Memo of Appeal)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Patel and Mr. Shubham Patel Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

09/04/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, application for condonation of delay of 101 days in filing this arbitration appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The present appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 for widening of National Highway No. 200 (New 49), wherein land of the private respondent was acquired and an award dated 16.04.2018 was passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) determining compensation. Being dissatisfied, the private respondent preferred an application under Section 3G(5) of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned Arbitrator, instead of re-determining the compensation, remanded the matter to the CALA for passing a revised/modified award vide arbitral award dated 21.02.2023. The appellant challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; however, the learned District Court, vide order dated 27.09.2024, dismissed the application while observing that the Arbitrator had acted beyond the scope of Section 3G(5). Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned DSGI appearing 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 101 days in filing the appeal. He further submits that the appeal was filed on 02.04.2025, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that after the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 was passed and the certified copy was obtained, the appellant sought legal opinion from its counsel, who advised filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The matter was thereafter placed before the superior authority for approval and, upon approval, entrusted to counsel for drafting. During this period, the then Executive Engineer (officer-in-charge) superannuated and the post remained vacant for some time. Subsequently, after the new officer assumed charge and the winter vacation intervened, the draft was approved and the appeal was filed. He also submits that the delay occurred due to these administrative and procedural circumstances, and not deliberately or with malafide intention. It is therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned considering the plausible explanation offered by the appellant..

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submit that the issue involved in the present arbitration appeal, regarding delay, has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2026 passed in ARBA No.62 of 2025 (Sumitra Bai vs. Executive Engineer, PWD & Ors.) placing reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Government of Maharasthra (Water Resources Department) vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460. Learned counsel further submits that the delay of 219 days has not been satisfactorily explained and the grounds urged