2026:HHC:34444 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 160 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.08.2026. Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus NHAI & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Chandresh Pal Vaidya vice Mr. Bhanwar Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Thakur, DAG, for respondent No.2. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition has been filed, seeking extension of period of mandate of the learned Arbitrator which has expired on 13.06.2025. 2. It has been contended in the petition that the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 92/117, Khasra No. 1161/60, measuring 888 square meters and Khata/Khatauni No. 92/118, Khasra No. 1162/60, measuring 7223 square meters, situated at Mohal Village Bijan, Hadbust No. 368, Circle, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Chipnu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, was under the ownership and possession of the petitioner. 2. As per petitioner, the NHAI proposed to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner as well as the other landowners for widening/four laning etc. The notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act declaring its intention to acquire the land was published in respect of the revenue Mohals, Bijan and Silha Kiper. Thereafter, the competent authority determined the value of the land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the value of the things attached to the land i.e. the structures etc. on the acquired land, was not determined. However, it was specifically set out in the award that separate awards for the purpose shall be made after evaluation reports of all villages are received. 3. As per the case as set up by the present petitioner, being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation, preferred claim under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. 4. This Court vide its order dated 02.12.2025, had allowed the application for extension of time to conclude the proceedings for a period of six months from 02.12.2025. The -3- petitioner has placed on record the order as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 02.06.2026, whereby the learned Commissioner has directed the parties to get the mandate extended from the competent Court of law and till then, the case file may be kept in abeyance. 5. In view of the averments as made in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings is extended by six months from today. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge 14th August, 2026. (kck)