Kiran Raj

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, Single Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma, has directed the continuation of arbitral proceedings concerning land acquisition disputes arising from the National Highway 21 project. The court allowed the petitioners’ plea seeking the extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings and set aside the previous order by the Arbitrator that closed proceedings on grounds of expiration of the statutory time limit. Justice Sharma recorded that “petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to abrupt termination of mandate.”

The court further directed the Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to complete the arbitration within six months. This decision affects arbitration proceedings relating to multiple petitions connected to land acquisition for highway widening in Himachal Pradesh.

Also Read: “‘No Deep and Pervasive Control’: Supreme Court Holds ICSSR Not Liable for CRRID Salaries, Says Grants Cannot Be Claimed ‘As a Matter of Right’”

The petitions arose from land acquisition activities undertaken for the Mandi-Gagal-Baggi-Janjehi and Shimla via Churag Karsog (NH-21) stretch in Himachal Pradesh. The acquired land belonged to petitioners from the village of Behna, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi. The land was acquired under an award passed by the Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer on 15.12.2016. Dissatisfied with the compensation under the award, the petitioners had sought redress through arbitration before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, acting as the Arbitrator.

Mr. H.S. Rangra, representing the petitioners, submitted that arbitral proceedings were initiated in 2018 and had been pending since then. However, on 16.02.2024, the Arbitrator terminated the proceedings under Section 29A(1) and 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, citing the expiry of the statutory period of 18 months.

It was submitted that the delay was not attributable to the petitioners but resulted from administrative reasons, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) and procedural delays by respondent National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The petitioners contended that, in similar cases, the High Court had previously extended arbitration timelines.

Ms. Shreya Chauhan, appearing for the NHAI, did not oppose the prayer for treating Arbitration Case No.51 of 2025 as the lead case for adjudication. Both parties acknowledged that in related cases concerning the same highway project, time extensions had been granted.

Justice Sharma recorded that “arbitral proceedings under Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) are to be completed within an 18-month period,” but noted that the legislature had also provided for extensions through Section 29A(5), subject to the court’s discretion based on sufficient cause.

The court observed that “the arbitral proceedings instituted in 2018 could not be completed within the maximum stipulated period of 18 months by the Arbitrator concerned on account of COVID Pandemic during the years 2020-2022 and thereafter due to administrative reasons as the arbitrator happened to be Divisional Commissioner of concerned Division and also due to non-filing of reply and non-performance of other procedural requirements by Respondent-NHAI.”

Justice Sharma remarked that the court was “of the considered view that the Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024 terminating the mandate of Arbitrator and keeping the arbitral proceedings in abeyance deserves to be set aside.” The court held that the petitioner could not be prejudiced for delays that were beyond their control.

The court also relied on Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting that “the statute enables the Court to enlarge time for completion of arbitral proceedings subject to its satisfaction based on sufficient cause.”

Further, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s interpretation in TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries (2023) and in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. (2024), where the apex court emphasized judicial discretion in extending the mandate of arbitrators when justified by sufficient cause.

Quoting from the Supreme Court, the court recorded that “the power of the court to extend the time is to be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such extension. Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application.”

The High Court also referenced prior coordinate bench decisions, where similar extensions were granted under comparable factual matrices. Justice Sharma stated that “in order to prevent any prejudice to petitioner, who had been litigating since the passing of Award in 2016 and even in Reference Proceedings before Learned Arbitrator since 2018 till passing of Impugned Order on 16.02.2024, coupled with the fact that the non-conclusion of arbitral proceeding was due to bonafide and genuine reasons, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside.”

The court applied the principle of “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit,” observing that a party should not suffer due to an act of the court or tribunal.

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana HC: “Vigilance Must Start at Entry Point, Not by Blanket Denial of Bail” — Bail Granted to Foreign National in Cyber Fraud Case

The court quashed the Impugned Orders dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, across Arbitration Reference Petition Nos. 673/18, 1659/17, 1658/17, and 674/18.

Justice Sharma directed that “all Arbitration Reference Petition(s) shall stand restored to their original position” and further ordered the Arbitrator to “complete the arbitral proceedings and to pass an Award in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment.”

The court also stated that costs would be “made easy for respective parties.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate

Case Title: Gopinder Singh v. The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Competent Authority (SLAU) and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:6238

Case Number: Arbitration Case No.51 of 2025, Arbitration Case No.52 of 2025, Arbitration Case No.53 of 2025, Arbitration Case No.81 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ranjan Sharma

[Read/Download order]