JUDGMENT :

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.

1. These two petitions are being decided together as identical issues on similar facts arise for consideration therein. For brevity, the facts are being referred to from CR No.2891 of 2025, which has been filed for setting aside orders dated 17.01.2025, 15.02.2025, 19.03.2025 and 29.04.2025, Annexures P-1 to P-4, respectively, whereby the Executing Court/Additional District Judge, Amritsar, has dismissed the objections of petitioner/National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)/judgment debtor, directing it to pay balance amount of compensation as per calculation sheet submitted by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (CALA-cum-SDM), Amritsar-I, forthwith.

2. To refer to the relevant facts, the petitioner/NHAI acquired land of the private respondents/land owners for construction of a national highway (NH-15) in village Verka under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act'), vide notification dated 23.05.2008 and, thereafter, notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act was issued on 13.05.2009. The competent authority/CALA, Amritsar-I, delivered an award, dated 31.05.2010, awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 8926 per square yard along with benefit under Section 3G(2) of the 1956 Act, i.e., ten per cent easement amount of the basic rate.

2.1. Dissatisfied with the award, the land owners approached the Arbitrator by filing a claim petition under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act for enhancement of compensation, which was, however, dismissed vide order/award dated 15.11.2011. They approached the Additional District Judge against it by filing objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act'), for setting aside the arbitrator's award and allowing the claim petition filed under Section 3G(5). This was also dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2014.

2.2. Thereupon, the land owners filed first appeal, FAO No.8090 of 2014, which was decided by this Court along with connected appeal, vide order dated 19.05.2016, setting aside the Arbitrator's award and holding that, '...the land owners shall be entitled to the enhanced compensation @ 330,000 per sq. yard with all statutory benefits as per the ratio decidendi culled out in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. Union ofIndia, 2011(4) RCR Civil 375'.

2.3. The order was subsequently reviewed in review application, RA-CR-142-CII-2017 (O&M) in FAO No.8090 of 2014, which was partly allowed vide order dated 20.12.2017, holding that, '...the landowners shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 326,000 per square yard with all statutory benefits as per the ratio decidendi culled out in 'M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging V/s Union of India', 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 375'. The said order, dated 20.12.2017, was challenged by the NHAI before the Supreme Court by filing SLP, which was dismissed.

2.4. Thereafter, the land owners filed execution application before the Court at Amritsar, and vide order dated 09.10.2018 the NHAI was directed to deposit unpaid balance amount of compensation including additional amount of twelve per cent as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'). This was challenged by the NHAI before this Court by filing a revision petition, CR No.7872 of 2018, on the ground that the land owners were not entitled to interest over interest, as claimed by them by filing the execution application. The petition remained pending with this Court and was finally disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2023 by recording that, the only surviving grievance was with regard to calculation of the un-paid amount including statutory benefits and interest on interest. And during pendency of the petition, the law regarding statutory benefits and interest had been settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others, 2019