2021 (8) TMI 1295 - HC - Indian Laws

NHAI's Challenge to Land Value Redetermination Orders Dismissed, Emphasizing Timely Petition Filings

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Another Versus Dillip Kumar Pati, Deepak Kumar Kar

The Court dismissed the NHAI's writ petitions challenging orders by the District Judge in arbitration cases regarding land value redetermination for ... Delay in filing petition - Redetermination of the land value under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly the last date for filing of the petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act by the NHAI to challenge the awards in question was 29th April, 2019. In terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act it was not possible for any challenge to be entertained beyond the outer limit of 120 days. The language of the provision is abundantly clear and does not admit of any ambiguity. There is no question of entertaining the petitions of the District Judge beyond the 120 days period. The Court finds no error having been committed by the learned District Judge in the impugned orders - Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Challenge to orders passed by the District Judge in arbitration cases by NHAI.2. Delay in filing petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.3. Condonation of delay in filing petitions.4. Applicability of recent Supreme Court decision in a similar case.5. Interpretation of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.Analysis:1. The NHAI filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the District Judge in arbitration cases related to redetermination of land value for highway construction. The petitions questioned the direction given by the Arbitrator to recalculate compensation at a higher rate per square meter.2. The delay in filing petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was attributed to various factors, including the election period and court vacation. The NHAI sought condonation of the delay, citing recent Supreme Court decisions and claiming the reasons for delay were valid.3. The District Judge declined to condone the delay, relying on previous judgments that emphasized strict timelines for filing challenges under Section 34 of the Act. The Opposite Parties argued that the recent Supreme Court decision cited by NHAI was not applicable to the present case.4. The Court noted the clear language of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which limits the time for filing challenges to arbitration awards. The recent Supreme Court decision cited by NHAI was found inapplicable as it pertained to a different section of the Act.5. Ultimately, the Court found no error in the District Judge's decision to not condone the delay in filing the petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed, emphasizing the strict timelines set out in the Act and previous judicial interpretations.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to orders, delay in filing petitions, arguments for condonation of delay, applicability of a recent Supreme Court decision, and the interpretation of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.