IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :12.03.2026 Gurnam Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ...Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Himanshu Arora, Addl. Standing Counsel &

Mr. T.S. Sullar, Advocate for respondent-U.T. Chandigarh.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-7282- 2004 by which, the claim raised by the appellants to appoint an Arbitrator to assess the entitled compensation to which they are entitled upon acquisition of their land after a period of more than 48 years of their land being acquired, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the land of the appellants was acquired in the year 1951 but as the amount of compensation was not paid to them therefore, in the year 1992, the appellants herein had filed the writ petitions being CWP-14670-1992 as well as CWP-15630 of 1992, which petitions were disposed of so as to direct the Collector concerned to release the amount of compensation in case the same has not been released in respect of the land acquired in the year 1951.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the amount of compensation was not released in favour of the land owners and in order to get higher compensation for such land, the present petition was filed for appointment of Arbitrator so as to adjudicate the entitled compensation for the land which was acquired but, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 18.02.2020 has dismissed the said claim of the appellants herein on account of delay and laches, which is incorrect as, such reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-3638 of 1994 titled as Hari Singh and others vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 26.07.1995 hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court may kindly be set aside and an Arbitrator be appointed to decide whether the compensation assessed qua the land acquired in the year

1951 was correct or not.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no record that the compensation for the land which was acquired was not paid to the forefathers of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the initial litigation, only the grant of compensation was being sought, which writ petition was disposed of wherein no request for appointment of an Arbitrator was made for considering enhancement of compensation hence, filing of second writ petition for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the claim of the appellants herein.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Division Bench of this Court as far back as in 1989 on the similar issue which was raised after a period of 18 years for appointment of the Arbitrator was declined, which judgment was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench deciding the case of Hari Singh (supra) and therefore, no benefit of such judgment can be extended to the appellants herein in view of the judgment passed in Banto Ram and others vs. UOI and others, 1989 (2)

PLR 401.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. It may be noticed that for appointment of an Arbitrator, the writ petition has been filed after a period of more than 53 years of the land being acquired. The said delay has gone unexplained at the hands of the appellants herein. The delay is material as, some time it has to be treated as fatal to the relief claimed. A delay which is unexplained for a period of five decades cannot be condoned s