IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 13 of 2026 in Arbitration Appeal No. 151 of 2026 Decided on : 06.04.2026 NHAI ...Petitioner. Versus Tara Devi & others …..Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.4. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) OMP(M) No. 13 of 2026 The present application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reasons as assigned in the application for not filing the appeal well in time, are plausible and reasonable. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, and since the averments made in the application are duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Application is allowed and disposed off. Arbitration Appeal No. 151 of 2026 Appeal be registered. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the present appellant, has abated as a whole and was dismissed as having abated on account of the death of late Smt. Tara Devi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present appellant initiated the process for acquisition of land for the construction of a National Highway. The Competent Authority, i.e., CALA, passed an award bearing No. 11/2013-2014 on 6th July, 2013. 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants approached the learned Arbitrator by invoking the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. The learned Arbitrator enhanced the amount vide award dated 07.08.2023. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitrator, the present appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the said award. 5. During the pendency of the objections under Section 34, Smt. Tara Devi (respondent No.1) expired. As per the impugned order placed on record, the objections were dismissed for not taking steps and for failing to take consequential steps for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1. 3 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned District Judge is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, Tara Devi, were already on record, namely Sh. Kamla Devi and Smt. Tripta Devi, both daughters of the said respondent. It is further contended that only an application for deletion of the name of respondent No.1 was required to be filed, however, on account of miscommunication, the said fact could not be brought to the notice of the learned District Judge. 7. Be that as it may, the admitted facts of the case are that Rulia Ram was the original owner of the suit land. After his death, his wife Smt. Tara Devi and his two daughters, Smt. Tripta Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi, were brought on record as party respondents. Smt. Tara Devi, wife of Rulia Ram, died during the pendency of the objections filed under Section 34, and on account of not taking steps, the objections were held to have abated. 8. This Court is of the opinion that since the legal representatives of Smt. Tara Devi were already on record as respondents No. 2 and 3, her estate was duly represented. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise, the appellant was only required to file an application for deletion of the name of respondent No.1, which could have been permitted even on oral submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 4 9. Without going into the merits of the case and in view of the no objection, the present appeal is allowed and the arbitration application bearing No. 55 of 2024 is restored to its original number, with permission granted to the present appellant to file an appropriate application on account of the death of Smt. Tara Devi. The learned District Judge, Mandi, is directed to proceed afresh in the matter and take the proceedings to their logical conclusion. The benefit of this order is granted to the parties subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to the respondent. 10. It is made clear that the cost shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 14.05.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 6, 2026 (Nisha)