UKHC010120092026 2026:UHC:5858 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2088/2026 Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and others --Petitioners Versus National Highway Authority of India and Another --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent No. 1, through video conferencing. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs: i. Set-aside/quash the order/award dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Learned Arbitrator in Case no 51/266 of 2021-22 filed under section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 by respondent no 1 (Annexure No 10) (Page no 64 to 68). ii. To remand the matter back to the learned Arbitrator for fresh adjudication after impleading the petitioners and affording them a full and effective opportunity of hearing in Case no 51/266 of 2021-22. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner purchased the land, which was subjected to acquisition proceedings, after issuance of notification under Section 3A of UKHC010120092026 2026:UHC:5858 National Highways Act, 1956; however, petitioner was not heard by Arbitrator, while giving award under Section 3G(5) of aforesaid Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the land in question was purchased by petitioners before issuance of notification under Section 3D of the aforesaid Act, therefore petitioners have every right to get compensation. 5. Learned State Counsel as well as Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel appearing for National Highway Authority concede that the award was given ex parte by the Arbitrator and even predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was also not heard. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that since petitioners have a remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, this writ petition would not be maintainable. They submit that application under Section 34 can be filed by a party who was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or notice regarding arbitral proceeding or anyone who is otherwise unable to present his case. It is contended that a provision to this effect is made under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. UKHC010120092026 2026:UHC:5858 7. Learned counsel for petitioners do not dispute the submission that petitioners have remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioners to invoke remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioners shall be at liberty to claim benefit of provision contained in Section 14 of Limitation Act. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.07.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a1 8b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1B C9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.07.15 20:04:23 +05'30'