Landowners whose properties are acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose are entitled to parity in compensation. Denying such parity is arbitrary and violates the constitutional right to equality, justifying the exercise of writ jurisdiction to ensure fair and equitable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

The petitioner-landowner, by way of present petition, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.4 totally in an illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner, without considering the award pertaining to the same acquisition and of the same village; for the same kind of land and further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the similar amount of compensation as has been awarded to the identically placed landowners in accordance with an arbitral Award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division-cum-Arbitrator (hereinafter to be referred as “Arbitrator”) in case No.MA-494-2009, titled “ Smt. Lilawati and others Versus Govt. of India and others ”; which was not challenged further by the respondent-NHAI and the same attained finality and has also been implemented in the year 2020 in execution proceedings.

[2] Reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2-NHAI has already been filed and taken on record.

FACTS

[3] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of Village Dugri Rajputan (situated within municipal limit), Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, came to be acquired in terms of notifications dated 24.12.2004 & 11.07.2005 issued under Sections 3-A & 3- D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”) respectively for the improvement and widening of Jalandhar-Pathankot National Highway-1A KM 26.00 to 117.50 in the State of Punjab. On 23.04.2008, respondent No.3 passed an award under Section 3-G (1) of the 1956 Act, whereby the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per marla.

[3.1] Being aggrieved, the petitioner sought arbitration invoking Section 3-G (5) of the 1956 Act, wherein vide Award dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P-2), the learned Arbitrator assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per marla for commercial and Rs. 1,25,000/- per marla for residential, besides award of other statutory benefits.

[3.2] Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 & 2 assailed the validity of the arbitration award dated 28.04.2011 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, having preferred Arbitration Case No.0800070/2011, which was allowed on 19.04.2012 (Annexure P-3) and after setting aside the Award dated 28.04.2011, the matter was remitted back to the learned Arbitrator for fresh decision.

[3.3] Later, after about 12 years of the above said remand order dated 19.04.2012, the learned Arbitrator vide its award dated 18.01.2024, adjudicated the matter afresh and dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. In doing so, learned Arbitrator ignored the award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed in arbitration case of Smt. Lilawati (supra) pertaining to the same village; the acquisition made for the same public purpose, and of identical nature of land. The learned Arbitrator overlooked the fact that some identically placed landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification dated 24.12.2004 issued under Section 3-A of 1956 Act; for the same public purpose; followed by the same award dated 23.04.2008; were granted the benefit of enhanced market value at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per marla for similar nature of land, i.e. commercial/residential, vide award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed in Smt. Lilawati’s case (supr