- (1.) Union of India is aggrieved of the dismissal of the objections filed against the award dated 29.05.2013, whereby the amount of compensation of abadi land at the rate of Rs.1,66,000/- per marla has been awarded, whereas objections were filed on 03.10.2013 beyond the period of limitation.
(2.) Mr. R.S. Madan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that copy of the award was not supplied to the appellants and, therefore, there was no delay and the objection was filed on acquiring the knowledge of the award. Copy of the award was not delivered in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, therefore, were not aware of the award of the Arbitrator. In Objection petition, reasoning assigned that the certified copy of the award dated 29.05.2013 was applied on 20.08.2013 and was delivered on the same day and the objection petition was filed on 03.10.2013 and, therefore, there is no limitation and objections were well within the time limit.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and appraised the paper book and of the view that no explanation has come forth in applying the certified copy of the award when the matter was reserved by the Arbitrator. The arbitrator, after remand, pronounced the award on 29.05.2013. It is not solitary case where the National Highway is not aware of the proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator in pursuance to the land acquired under the National Highway Act. I have come across with many cases where similar plea has been taken. The appellant cannot take the benefit of the provisions of the Act by protecting their own lackadaisical approach. No explanation has come forth as to why the period of three months elapsed from the date of award and date of applying the certified copy of the award. However on going through the award, it is evident that the appellant had contested the matter before the Arbitrator and appeared in many cases. Presence of the counsel representing the landowners and as well as of Union of India is evident. It cannot be expected that they remained oblivious of the finding of the Arbitrator and did not ascertain the outcome of the same.;