Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Sangat Singh (now deceased) Through LRs – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satbir Rathore
For the Respondents: Rishi Kaushal, Komal Bishnoi, Puru Jarewal

Landowners whose land is acquired under the same notification cannot be denied parity in compensation, and writ jurisdiction can be invoked where the alternate remedy is not efficacious.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3-A, 3-D, and 3-G (1) and (5) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 226 - Land acquisition - Compensation - Parity in compensation - Arbitral award - Discrimination - Judicial review - Writ jurisdiction.

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equality before law - Differential treatment among landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, same statute, and from the same revenue estate is patently arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination. (Para 7.1)

(C) Arbitration - Statutory Arbitration under National Highways Act - Scope of interference under Section 34 is limited to setting aside an award, not modifying it - Writ court may exercise broader supervisory scrutiny to ensure fairness and parity where remedy under Section 34 is not efficacious. (Paras 4.1, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners' land in Village Dugri Rajputan was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, for widening a national highway. An award dated 23.04.2008 assessed market value at Rs.50,000/- per marla. The petitioners sought arbitration, and an award dated 08.07.2011 enhanced compensation to Rs.2,30,000/- per marla. This was set aside on 05.10.2013, and remanded for fresh decision. On 18.01.2024, the Arbitrator dismissed the claim for enhancement, ignoring an earlier arbitral award dated 28.07.2011 in the case of identically placed landowners of the same village, for the same acquisition and same nature of land, which had granted compensation at Rs.2,30,000/- per marla and had attained finality.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the differential treatment among landowners under the same notification and from the same revenue estate was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It noted that the Apex Court has held that similarly situated landowners cannot be denied parity in compensation, even across different statutes. The court also held that the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is not efficacious as it only allows setting aside an award, not modification. Consequently, the impugned award was set aside, and the petitioners were held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per marla with all consequential statutory benefits.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Arbitrator's denial of parity to identically placed landowners was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the principle of parity in compensation must apply to all landowners whose land is acquired under the same notification and from the same revenue estate, and that relegating the petitioners to the remedy under Section 34 would cause further delay and hardship without providing effective relief, given the limited scope of that section. Result : Petition disposed of. Impugned award set aside. Petitioners held entitled to compensation at Rs.2,30,000/- per marla with all consequential statutory benefits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners-landowners, by way of present petition, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Award dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.4 totally in an illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner, without considering the award pertaining to the same acquisition and of the same village; for the same kind of land and further pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the similar amount of compensation as has been awarded to the identically placed landowners in accordance with an arbitral Award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division-cum-Arbitrator (hereinafter to be referred as “Arbitrator”) in case No.MA-494-2009, titled “Smt. Lilawati and others Versus Govt. of India and others”; which was not challenged further by the respondent-NHAI and the same attained finality and has also been implemented in the year 2020 in execution proceedings.

[2] Reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2-NHAI has already been filed and taken on record.

FACTS [3] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of Village Dugri Rajputan (situated within municipal limit), Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, came to be acquired in terms of notifications dated 24.12.2004 & 11.07.2005 issued under Sections 3-A & 3- D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”) respectively for the improvement and widening of Jalandhar-Pathankot National Highway-1A KM 26.00 to 117.50 in the State of Punjab. On 23.04.2008, respondent No.3 passed an award under Section 3-G (1) of the 1956 Act, whereby the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per marla.

[3.1] Being aggrieved, the petitioner(s) sought arbitration invoking Section 3-G (5) of the 1956 Act, wherein vide Award dated 08.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), the learned Arbitrator assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per marla, besides award of other statutory benefits.

[3.2] Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 & 2 assailed the validity of the arbitration award dated 08.07.2011 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, having preferred Arbitration Case No. 6340/2012, which was allowed on 05.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) and after setting aside the Award dated 08.07.2011, the matter was remitted back to the learned Arbitrator for fresh decision.

[3.3] Later, after about 11 years of the above said remand order dated 05.10.2013, the learned Arbitrator vide its award dated 18.01.2024, adjudicated the matter afresh and dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner(s) for enhancement of compensation. In doing so, learned Arbitrator ignored the award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed in arbitration case of Smt. Lilawati (supra) pertaining to the same village; the acquisition made for the same public purpose, and of identical nature of land. The learned Arbitrator overlooked the fact that some identically placed landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification dated 24.12.2004 issued under Section 3-A of 1956 Act; for the same public purpose; followed by the same award dated 23.04.2008; were granted the benefit of enhanced market value at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- per marla for similar nature of land, i.e. commercial/residential, vide award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed in Smt. Lilawati’s case (supra). The said award further attained finality, having been implemented by NHAI in the year 2020 in execution proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition has been instituted seeking setting aside of the impugned award dated 18.01.2024 and for grant of parity in compensation in favour of the petitioners.

CONTENTION(S) :-

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a clear-cut discrimination done with the petitioner(s)-landowner(s) as for the same very acquisition; pertaining to the same reven

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHHarkesh Manuja, JSangat Singh (now deceased) Through LRs – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWrit Petition

Landowners whose land is acquired under the same notification cannot be denied parity in compensation, and writ jurisdiction can be invoked where the alternate remedy is not efficacious.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Sangat Singh (now deceased) Through LRs – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition