IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arbitration Case No: 19 of 2026.

Decided on : 09th JanuaryP, 2026 __________________________________________________________ Kismat Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Land Acquisition Officer, NHAI and another o ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitionuer : Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 1.

Mr. Amit K. Chauhary, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 4. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Kismat Singh has 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 the period from 28.01.2025 onwards may kindly be extended for a reasonable time.”

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

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 respondent. No.1 & respondents No.2 and 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 petitioner submits 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 since the year 2023, till the passing of the Impugned Order on

22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1].

5. Grievance of the petitioner is 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. 12/2023. It is averred that though arbitral proceedings continued since 2023 but Learned Arbitrator passed an order on 22.02.2025 [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 22.02.2025 [Annexure P-1].

6. Heard, Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Mr. Amit.K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 2 to 4.

7. Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, does not dispute the factual matrix that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2023 and since then, the pa.rties 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 TATA Sons Ltd.) vs. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and others, reported in 2023 (1) SCALE 793, held that the mandate of an Arbitrator is liable to be extended by the Court, under Section

29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Act, in the following terms:-

“24 The provisions of Section 29A, as originally introduced