Uttarakhand High Court
Ukhc010120092026 vs National Highway Authority Of India And on 15 July, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
UKHC010120092026
2026:UHC:5858
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. No. Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
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/
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MAHINDER SINGH
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’
