IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) Decided on : 10.03.2025 Rekha Devi ……Appellant(s)

Versus Union of India & others ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr.Manoj Pundir, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms.Promila Nain, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent-UOI.

Mr.Samarth Sagar, Advocate, for respondent No.2-NHAI.

*****

LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral)

CM-22111-CII-2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the appeal.

Perused the grounds.

Such grounds are found sufficient.

Application is allowed and delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order

dated July 4, 2024 passed by the Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the

Learned District Judge had set-aside the award dated December 15, 2020 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Arbitrator whereby the compensation granted to the land-loser was enhanced from Rs.30,000/- per marla to Rs.1.15 lakhs per marla. The Learned Addl.District Judge proceeded on the basis that the Learned Arbitrator misdirected himself by enhancing the compensation of the acquired land by about four times and allowing compensation @ Rs.1,15,000/- per marla (Rs.1.84 crores per acre) relying on the judgments rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in Union of India & another Vs. M/s Abhinav Cotspin Ltd. & others (FAO-1158-2015) and Union of India & another Vs. M/s R.C.Ice Factory & others (FAO-8013-2014) decided on August 10, 2016.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, Learned Addl.District Judge held that in the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Abhinav Cotspin Ltd. (supra) and M/s R.C. Ice Factory (supra), there was only discussion with regard to enhancement made in respect to commercial land to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per marla and Rs.1,30,000/- per marla for residential land. There was no discussion in respect to enhancement to the tune of Rs.1,15,000/- per marla in respect of Chahi/agricultural land. Therefore, the Learned Arbitrator misdirected himself by relying on the aforesaid judgments of the High Court in coming to the finding that once the rate for the same village in respect to agricultural land was determined by the High Court, there was no cogent reason for him to determine a different rate per marla for agricultural/Chahi land situated in the same village.

3. Furthermore, it was held in the award that since there was no structure on the said land in question, therefore, the land-losers could not substantiate their contention that the land acquired was commercial in nature. The land-losers were only entitled to the enhanced compensation as approved by the High Court in respect of Chahi land.

4. Hence, the award was set-aside and the proceedings were remanded back to the Learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and make a fresh decision within a period of 6 months from the date of the order.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Learned Addl.District Judge misdirected himself by setting aside the arbitral award and remanding it back to the Learned Arbitrator for a fresh decision in the matter.

6. He relies on a judgment passed by a Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kinnari Mallick & another Vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani, 2017 INSC 1281 : 2018 (11) SCC 328 in support of his contention. 7. On merits, he submits that the Learned Addl.District Judge erroneously held that there was no finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of Chahi land. Four appeals were taken-up together and the facts were discussed from FAO-1158-2015 M/s Abhinav Cotspin Ltd. (supra) and FAO-8013-2014 M/s R.C. Ice Factory (supra). Even though the appeal i.e. FAO-3746-2015 Union of India & another Vs. Parshan Kaur & others was allowed, the facts of that case was not discussed by the Co-ordinate Bench. He draws the attention of this Court to the award dated June 22, 2013 passed by the Learne