IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 179 of 2026 Date of decision: 08.09.2026. Rajender Kumar & others ...Petitioners. Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.4. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition under Section 29 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2023. 2. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Mandi, H.P. for building (widening/four laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway 21 for which land has been acquired under the provisions of National 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Highways Act, 1956 and for which, compensation was awarded vide award dated 18.01.2018 by the Competent Authority. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the petitioners preferred Arbitration Case No.1 of 2023 before the learned Arbitrator under National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition. 4. The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owners in the year 2023. According to the petitioners, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, which has resulted into unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator under National Highways Authority of India-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. 5. This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the learned 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. -3- However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the learned Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed. 6. In view of the averments as made in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition is allowed and time is extended for completing the arbitral proceedings for passing the award by the learned Arbitrator on or before 07.03.2027. 7. The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 8th September, 2026. (vt)