IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

Arbitration Case No: 11 of 2026.

Decided on : 09th JanuaryP, 2026

__________________________________________________________

Shyam Chand and anr.

...Petitioners

Versus

Collector Land Acquisition, oNHAI

and ors. ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approvedu for reporting?

For the petitioners : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the respondent : Ms. Shreya Chauhan,

Advocate for respondents No.

1 and 2.

Mr. Amit K. Chauhary, Deputy Advocate General for

respondent No.3.

gRanjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioners, Shyam Chand and Uttam Chand

have come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):- “ That time limit for completing the Arbitration proceedings in Arbitration

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

Reference case No. 1476 of 2017 titled as Ashish and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority of India pending before the Plearned Arbitrator under National Highways Authority of India-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, may kindly be extended for a further period of six months.” f

2. Upon listing of the case today Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General have put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 & respondents No. 3, respectively. They jointly submit that no reply is intended to be filed in the instant matter in view of the fact that in identical matters relating to the same subject extension for mandate has been allowed by this Court. 3. On query by this Court, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that identical matters have been allowed by granting extension to Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, (HP)

for concluding the arbitral proceedings.

4. In above backdrop, this Court, proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, without the reply having been filed, at this stage itself, which shall only expedite the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, in which parties herein have participated sin.ce the year 2017, till the passing of the Impugned Order on

16.02.2024[Annexure P-1].

5. Grievance of the petitioners are that pursuant to passing of the Award by CALA concerned, the parties offered themselves for arbitral proceedings, before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who commenced the arbitral proceedings vide Case No. 1476/2017. It is averred that though arbitral proceedings continued since 2017 but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 16.02.2024[Annexure P-1]. for keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance. It is in this background, the present petition has been filed, with the prayer to direct Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings within a stipulated period by extending the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings under Section 29 A (4) & 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by quashing the order dated 16.02.2024[Annexure P-1].

6. Heard, Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advoca.te for the respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Mr. Amit.K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 3.

7. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the factual matrix that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2017 and since then, the parties have participated in these proceedings. It is not in dispute that in other identical cases relating to the same subject-land though the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance and the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated but consequent upon the intervention of this Court, the time was enlarged/extended for concluding the arbitral proceedings. Pursuant to the orders passed in similar cases arbitral process are underway and/or in some case the same have been concluded.

8. While dealing with a similar fact-situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly