2026:HHC:7370 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Appeal No. 548/2025 Reserved on: 09.03.2026 Decided on: 16.03.2P026 Balwant & ors. …..Appellants Versus National Highway Authority of India & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2.

Romesh Verma, Judge The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated

6.6.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Arbitration Petition No. 987/2024, whereby the objections preferred by the respondent/NHAI against the Award dated 6.3.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Arbitrator under National Highways

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act”) have been partly allowed and the award passed by the Arbitrator has been partly set aside.

2 Facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Central Governme.nt issued notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, which was published in the official gazette on 21.04.2012 and 17.08.2012 for acquiring the land of the land owoners for building, widening, four-laning etc. maintenance, m anagement and operation of NH-21 from KM126.500 to KM 188.917 (Bilaspur-Nerchowk Section) in respect of revenue estate Dayholi, Tehsil Sundernagar, Doistrict Mandi. After issuing notifications under Section 3D (1) and 3G (3) of the Act, the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA), vide Award No. 40, dated 17.10.2013 ashsessed market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.12 lacs per bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective of classification and nature of the land.

3 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the appellants/landowners filed claim petition under Section 3G (5) of the Act before the notified Arbitrator i.e. Divisional Commissioner Mandi, who vide order dated 06.03.2024 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 26,35,000/- per bigha. The appellants were also held entitled to all the statutory benefits granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.

Tarsem Singh, AIR 2019 SC 4689 on the compensation amount.

4 The aforesaid award dated 06.03.2024 came to be challenged by National Highway Authority of India, r.espondent No.1 herein, by filing application (Arbitration Petition No. 987/2024) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Distroict Judge Mandi, who vide judgment dated 6.6.2025 pa rtly allowed the aforesaid application and held the appellants/landowners to be entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the judgment in Tarsem Singh’s case (suopra), however rejected the benefit as has been granted by the CALA under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in favour of the appellants for additional market value.

5 h Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for additional market value, the appellants have filed the instant appeal praying therein to quash and set aside the judgment dated 6.6.2025, as passed by the learned District Judge and to restore the award dated 06.03.2024, as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, as a whole.

6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7 As regards respondent No.1-NHAI, it has not yet challenged the judgment dated 6.6.2025, as passed by the learned District Judge, whereby its appeal was partly allowed, however, as regards the landowners/appellants, they. have laid challenge to the judgment dated 6.6.2025 submitting herein that they are not aggrieved with the judgment dated 6.6.2025 as a whole, however they are dissaotisfied with the findings as rendered with regard to relief of additional amount under Sectio