IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 Raman Kumar and others .......... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No. 2-NHAI.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners, by way of present writ petition, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant 100% solatium alongwith interest as per Section 30 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

[2] At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts the prayer with regard to issuance of directions to the learned Executing Court for expediting the execution proceedings arising out of Execution Petition, i.e. EXE/154/2025 which is based on an award passed in Arbitration Case, i.e. ARB/511/2022, titled “Amarjeet Singh Versus Union of India”, decided on 24.01.2023.

[3] On 26.04.2023, Co-ordinate Bench passed the following order:-

“ It transpires that Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways issued Notification dated 07.11.2014 (P-2) under Section 3A (1) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”) for acquisition of certain lands, including land of petitioners for (for widening/fourlaning) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.15 in the stretch of KM 265.700 to KM 287.215 (Bathinda Section), District Bathinda, State of Punjab. The competent authority awarded compensation to the petitioners/predecessors-in-interest vide Award dated 03.05.2015 & 09.06.2015 (P-4).

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, petitioners invoked the remedy of arbitration and the sole Arbitrator- respondent No. 5 enhanced the compensation vide Award dated 18.01.2019/23.01.2019.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid award, NHAI-

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Act of

1996”).

It is relevant to mention here that alongwith the objection petition, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also filed application for stay of the operation of the arbitral award; but the same was rejected by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot on 18.02.2022.

It is the conceded position that as on today, there is no stay operating against the award passed by sole Arbitrator; but despite that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners on the premise that execution proceedings are pending for 06.05.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the provisions of the National Highways (Manner of Depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019 (for short “Rules of 2019”), it is obligatory upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to pay enhanced compensation without any delay. He also submits that respondents have paid compensation to some of the landowners whose land was acquired under the notification referred above; but petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed without there being any valid reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contended that invariably respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are adopting pick and choose policy regarding payment of compensation for the reasons best known to them. He again contended that landowners are kept on tenterhook and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are increasing the avoidable litigation at the cost of public exchequer.

In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are lacking in performance of their duty, while not implementing the Act of 1956 as well as Rules of 2019; thus giving rise to negation of the rule of law.

However, before expressing any final opinion in the matter, this Court