1 ( 2026:HHC:10764 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arbitration Case No.27 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Jamuna Devi (deceased) through LR. …Petitioner Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 not filed. However, it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1 that reply filed by respondent No.2, be treated as reply on behalf of respondent No.1. His statement is taken on record. Ordered accordingly. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:10764 ) 2. The present petition under Section 29 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 75/2024, titled as Jamuna Devi (deceased) through her LR. Versus Land Acquisition Collector & anr., pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator at Mandi. H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Bilaspur H.P. for the purpose of construction of the National Highway, land, for which, has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowners have preferred Arbitration Reference Case No.75 of 2024, before the Arbitrator cum- Divisional Commissioner, at Mandi, and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition. 3 ( 2026:HHC:10764 ) 5. The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner in the year 2024. According to the petitioner, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, HP., has been caused. 6. This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the view that when, a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then, the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it, within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition, even after completion of the pleadings, the Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed. 4 ( 2026:HHC:10764 ) 7. In view of aforesaid discussions and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner,Mandi. H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.75 of 2024, on or before 5th October, 2026. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Virender Singh) Judge April 06, 2026 (subhash)