248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-7436-2024 Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 ****

National Highways Authority of India ..... Petitioner Versus Harkesh Singh and others ..... Respondents CR-7456-2024 National Highways Authority of India ..... Petitioner Versus Suman Rani and others ..... Respondents CR-7505-2024 National Highways Authority of India ..... Petitioner Versus Sunita Gupta and others ..... Respondents CR-7578-2024 National Highways Authority of India ..... Petitioner Versus Poonam Rani and others ..... Respondents CR-7580-2024 National Highways Authority of India ..... Petitioner Versus Harkesh Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner-NHAI (through V.C.).

Mr. Arihant Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India.

Mr. Hemant Passi, Advocate for Mr. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for private respondents.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

1. All the revision petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and are taken up together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsels for the parties since they are similar in nature.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-NHAI submitted that when objections were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the petitioner, then along with the aforesaid objections applications in all the five cases were filed under Section 36(2) of the Act seeking stay of the award. He further submitted that by way of the impugned order, it has been so directed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala that 50% of the compensation amount deposited or to be deposited by the petitioner-NHAI before the Executing Court shall be released to the land-owners by the Executing Court after furnishing personal bonds with one surety for the said amount and the operation of the award qua remaining amount shall remain stayed till the pendency of the objections under Section 34 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer of the petitioner in all the five cases is only to a limited extent that the aforesaid order be modified to the extent that instead of the condition of furnishing of personal bond with one surety the same may be substituted with furnishing of adequate bank guarantee and in this regard he referred to a judgment passed by this Court in a bunch of Civil Revisions, with the lead case bearing No. CR-2594- 2025 titled as “National Highways Authority of India versus Piara Lal and others” decided on 04.09.2025 wherein it was so directed by this Court that NHAI is to deposit 100% of the award amount, out of which, 50% of the amount shall be deposited in the Nationalized Bank in the shape of FDR and the remaining 50% of the amount may be released to the land losers in the event of their filing an application, subject to furnishing of adequate bank guarantee.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the private respondents in all the five cases submitted that it will be difficult for the land-losers to furnish bank guarantee and therefore, the aforesaid order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala be not modified.

4. I have heard the learned counsels of the parties.

5. The issue involved in the present case is limited to the extent as to whether when learned Additional District Judge, Patiala has stayed the operation of the award, then with regard to disbursement of 50% of the total compensation amount to the land-losers, a condition can be imposed for furnishing of personal bond with one surety. This Court had an occasion to deal with the aforesaid issue in a bunch of civil revisions with the lead case i.e. National Highways Authority of India versus Piara Lal and others case (Supra). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgmen