Writ jurisdiction -- Acquisition of land under National Highways Act, 1956 – Arbitrator can proceed to decide the entitlement with regard to statutory benefits, however, in any other eventuality, where the land owners do not dispute the correctness of the market value determined by the competent authority under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 3G of the 1956 Act, then, they cannot be forced to apply for appointment of Arbitrator only for the purpose of payment of the amount of statutory benefits -- Writ allowed, respondents directed to pay solatium amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act after adjusting the amount already paid -- Respondents shall also pay the amount with interest in accordance with Section 80 of the 2013 Act within two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Limitation of 3 years – No provision in Arbitration Act specifying period of limitation for filing an application u/s 11 of the Act -- One would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act and it would be covered by the residual provision Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- Section 29A mandates that the arbitral tribunal will conclude the proceedings within a period of 18 months -- In view of the legislative intent, the period of 3 years for filing an application u/s 11 would run contrary to the scheme of the Act -- It would be necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11, prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of the arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021