IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arb. Case No.126 of 2025 Decided on: 27^th June, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Hari Singh Saini & Another ...Petitioners Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Another f …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the appellants: Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State.

Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2-NHAI Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

Pursuant to the orders dated 16.05.2025, the proceedings in the instant petition were stayed, in view of the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in case of Sohan Lal and Others Versus Union of India and Others [CWP No.19799-2023, on 20.03.2025]. Now, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

operation of the aforesaid judgment on 30.05.2025 in SLP(c) Diary No. 26933 of 2025 titled as M/s Riar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Union of India and others directing the continu.ance of arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, the instant petition is taken up today. 2. Heard.

3. Notice. Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 2-National Highway Authority of India and states that no reply is intended to be filed in view of the fact -situation as identical cases involving same subject matter have been allowed H by this Court, which have attained finality. Learned State Counsel states that the matter relates to Respondent No.2 only.

4. Instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts stated above, this application may kindly be allowed and the time limit for completing the

3G(5) Arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference No. 395 of 2018 titled as Hari Singh Saini versus Land Acquisition Office (SLAU) and another pending before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. may kindly be exten.ded to six months or any other orders or diHrections which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper, in the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed, in the interest of fjustice.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to passing of Awtard by CALA concerned, the parties offered themselves for arbitral proceedings. The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, commenced the arbitral proceedings vide Case No.395/2018 on 10.07.2018, which is clear from Ahnnexure P-1. Pursuant to the arbitral proceedings, g the parties participated therein, but the Arbitrator i concerned passed an order on 26.12.2022 [Annexure P-2], whereby the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance on the plea that since the Award could not be passed within the stipulated maximum permissible period of 18 months, from the date of completion of pleadings, therefore, the mandate of the Arbitrator had expired. It is in this background, the present petition has been filed by invoking Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking quashing of the order dated 26.12.2022 [Annexure P-2], with the prayer to direct .Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings, within a stipulated period.

6. Upon listing of the case, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-NHAI, does not dispute the factual aspects, that arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2018 and since then, the parties have participated in these proceedings. It is not disputed that in other identical cases, relating to the same subject land, the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated and arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance but consequent upon the intervention of H this Court, the time for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings was extended and the arbitral process are underway and/or i