Himachal Pradesh High Court
ARB.C/161/2026 of LOK RAJ SAINI Vs NHAI AND ANR on 14 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 161 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.08.2026. Lok Raj Saini ...Petitioner. Versus NHAI & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr.
2026:HHC:34445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No. 161 of 2026
Date of decision: 14.08.2026.
Lok Raj Saini
...Petitioner.
Versus
NHAI & another
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner :
Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Chandresh Pal Vaidya vice Mr.
Bhanwar
Kumar,
Advocate,
for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Manish Thakur, DAG, for
respondent No.2.
Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):
The instant petition
has been filed,
seeking
extension of period of mandate of the learned Arbitrator which has expired on 13.06.2025.
2.
It has been contended in the petition that the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 335/374, Khasra No. 9/1, measuring 20123 square meters and Khata/Khatauni No.
335/374, Khasra No. 1456/1163/60/1, measuring 3545
square meters and Khata/Khatauni No. 335/375, khasra No.
1456/1163/60/2, measuring 542 square meters, situated at
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Mohal Village Bijan, Hadbust No. 368, Circle, Chipnu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, was under the ownership and possession of the petitioner.
2.
As per petitioner, the NHAI proposed to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner as well as the other landowners for widening/four laning etc. The notification under Sub-section
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act declaring its intention to acquire the land was published in respect of the revenue Mohals, Bijan and Silha Kiper. Thereafter, the competent authority determined the value of the land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the value of the things attached to the land i.e. the structures etc. on the acquired land, was not determined. However, it was specifically set out in the award that separate awards for the purpose shall be made after evaluation reports of all villages are received.
3. As per the case as set up by the present petitioner, being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation, preferred claim under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
4. This Court vide its order dated 02.12.2025, had allowed the application for extension of time to conclude the proceedings for a period of six months from 02.12.2025. The petitioner has placed on record the order as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 02.06.2026, whereby the learned Commissioner has directed the parties to get the mandate extended from the competent Court of law and till then, the case file may be kept in abeyance.
5. In view of the averments as made in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings is extended by six months from today.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 14th August, 2026. (kck)