Uttarakhand High Court
Saravan Singh And Others. … vs Competent Authority Special Land … on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:1498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (MS) No. 534 of 2025
Saravan Singh And Others. ..................... Petitioners.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 65 of 2025
Vipin Kumar Gupta. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 128 of 2025
Vijayant Jaiswal. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 129 of 2025
Kuldeep Singh Sandhu. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 136 of 2025
Ajeet Kumar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
1
2026:UHC:1498
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 174 of 2025
Amit Jindal. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 176 of 2025
Sudarshan Kumar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 177 of 2025
Ajay Juneja. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 192 of 2025
Madan Mohan Madan. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 195 of 2025
Gulshan Kumar Madaan. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 476 of 2025
2
2026:UHC:1498
Priyanka Batra. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 538 of 2025
Rajendra Kumar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 542 of 2025
Rajendra Kumar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 545 of 2025
Jasbeer Singh and Another. ..................... Petitioners.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 547 of 2025
Saravan Singh And Others. ..................... Petitioners.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 549 of 2025
3
2026:UHC:1498
Saravan Singh. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 613 of 2025
Yashpal Taneja. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 2650 of 2025
Atar Singh. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority And Another.
...............Respondents.
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 2658 of 2025
Asha Arora. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
Competent Authority And Another.
...............Respondents.
Present:
Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal and Mr. K.S. Mehta, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for NHAI.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. In all these bunch of writ petitions preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, common
question of law and facts are involved, therefore, all the
writ petitions are being heard and decided together by
4
2026:UHC:1498
this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 534 of 2025 is
being treated to be leading one.
2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the
order passed by the Arbitrator /Collector, Udham Singh
Nagar, whereby applications preferred by petitioners
under Section 3 (G) (5) of the National Highway Act,
1956 has been rejected at the admission stage on the
ground of limitation. Admittedly, land of the petitioners
were acquired for widening of NH 74 from Kashipur to
Sitarganj from 175 km. to 252 km and the Competent
Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e.
respondent no. 1 herein has passed an Award on
27.04.2015 followed by Supplementary Award dated
20.01.2017.
3. Case of the petitioners are that due to financial
constraints and lack of legal knowledge Award could not
be challenged within time and subsequently, after
arranging the fund, the application was filed under
Section 3 (G) (5) of the National Highway Act after seven
years of the Award. The aforesaid application was
rejected by the order impugned without going into the
merit of the case on the ground that the same is barred
by limitation and while rejecting the application, the
Arbitrator in its order impugned take note of the fact that
no application was moved for condoning the delay since
the contention of the applicant was that the provision of
Limitation Act are not applicable and observed even
assuming that the provision of Limitation Act are not
applicable even then period of limitation would be 3
years as provided under Article 137 of Limitation Act
5
2026:UHC:1498
and as such at a belated stage of i.e. after 7 years the
application cannot be allowed.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
order impugned is bad in the eyes of law since the
provision of Limitation Act are not applicable and is
liable to be set aside.
5. The moot question raised in these petitions are on two
folds:
“(i) Whether the Arbitrator was right in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 3 (G)
(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 on the ground
of limitation more particularly under Article 137 of
the Limitation Act, 1963?
(ii) Whether Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the
Arbitrator who is deciding the application under
Section 3 (G) (5) of the National Highway Act, 1956
in capacity of the quasi judicial body.”
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
learned Arbitrator while passing the impugned order has
not considered Section 2 (4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, which reads as under:
“2 (4) This Part except sub-section (1) of section 40,
sections 41 and 43 shall apply to every arbitration
under any other enactment for the time being in
force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an
arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment
were an arbitration agreement, except in so far as the
provisions of this Part are inconsistent with that
other enactment or with any rules made thereunder.”
6
2026:UHC:1498
7. By referring the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for
the petitioner argued that Section 2 (4) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, shows that Section 43 which talks
about limitation is not applicable to arbitration under
any other enactment as the case in hand. Section 43 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act is read as under:
“Limitations.–(1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of
1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to
proceedings in court. (2) ……………”
8. It is argued that on bare perusal of Section 2 (4) and
Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
clearly shows that Section 2 (4) is has exempted the
application of Section 43 on Arbitration proceedings
under other enactment, which means if no limitation is
prescribed under any other enactment, provisions of
limitation would not apply on such arbitration under
such enactments.
9. It is argued that Section 3 (G) (5) and (6) of the National
Highway Act does not prescribe any limitation at the
time of filing arbitration applications for enhancement of
compensation and hence, on account of enactment being
silent on limitation, Article 137 of the Limitation Act will
not apply.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Uttam Namdeo Mahalay Vs. Vithal Deo (1997) 6 SCC
73 as well as judgment of Karnataka High Court in the
case of NHAI Vs. Uday Kumar and another (2016) SCC
online Kar 1318 and also the judgment of Madras High
7
2026:UHC:1498
Court in the case of Project Director, NHAI Vs. K.
Periyasamy and others.
11. Learned counsel finally concluded her arguments by
submitting that the order passed by the Arbitrator is per
se illegal and liable to be set aside, since in the facts of
the present case provisions of the Limitation Act would
not apply.
12. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the National
Highway Authority of India, wherein, a preliminary
objection has been raised with regard to maintainability
of the writ petition by submitting that writ petitions are
not maintainable in view of the alternative and statutory
remedy, as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.
13. It is contended that order of rejecting the application is
appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, therefore, the petitioners should file an
appeal before the learned District Judge against the order
impugned.
14. In reference to the maintainability of the writ petition,
respondent has placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SBP & Co. Vs.
Patel Engineering Ltd. and another (2005) 8 SCC 618,
Bhaven Construction Vs. Executive Engineer and
another (2022) 1 SCC 75; South India Bank Ltd. Vs.
Naveen Mathew Philip and another (2023) SCC online
435; Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of
India, (2020) 19 SCC 592; Nekkalapudi Ramakrishana
Pratap Vs. the District Collector cum Arbitrator, West
Godavari District and another, (2006) LAC 517 AP.
8
2026:UHC:1498
15. Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.
2 submits that Section 3G (6) of the National Highway
Act stipulates that the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every
arbitration under this Act wherein Section 43 makes
provisions of limitation and Section 21 of the Arbitration
Act states that the arbitration proceedings will be
deemed to be commenced from the date of award or
cause of action, arising to be referred to arbitration,
which as per Article 137 of the Act is 3 years.
16. Apart from this, he submits that judgments as relied
upon by the petitioners are not applicable in the instant
case and moreover, the judgments passed by the
different High Courts with regard to applicability
limitation are subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. He further submits that award passed by the
Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) dismissing the
arbitration application on the ground of delay is
absolutely correct and in this particular case, admittedly,
there is an inordinate delay in challenging the award.
17. He further submits that the Kerala High Court in WA
No. 1600 of 2022 National Highway Authority of India
Vs. P.V. Gorge, decided on 23.07.2024 in paragraph 6 and
7 has held as under:
“6. It is clear from Section 2 (4) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act that Section 43 will not apply to every
arbitration under any other enactment. This means that if
no limitation is prescribed under any other enactment,
provisions of Limitation Act would not apply to such
arbitration under such enactment. In the light of the above,
we are of the view that Limitation Act will not apply for
9
2026:UHC:1498
arbitration under the National Highway Act.
7. The question of interfering with the writ
petition challenging the decision has been dealt with by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1364 of
2024. This Court, in categorical terms held that the remedy
to challenge the decision of the Arbitrator, who is the
District Collector, is by invoking the provisions under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act. Thus, it
is clear that that the writ petition is not maintainable
against the decision of the Arbitrator, who happens to be a
District Collector. Thus, holding that the writ petition is
not maintainable, we set aside the impugned judgment and
allow this writ appeal.
18. As pointed out the issue whether Limitation Act would
apply or not is still subjudice before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and admittedly, the petitioners have a
statutory remedy as provided under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, therefore, taking into
consideration the preliminary objection of National
Highway Authority, this Court is of the view of that all
these writ petitions are not maintainable against the
order of Arbitrator / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.
19. Accordingly, in view of the alternative statutory remedy
as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, all these bunch of writ petitions are
dismissed as not maintainable.
20. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
09.03.2026
PR10