Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
CWP No.38070 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Pundir, Dilpreet
For the Respondents: Komal Bishnoi, Rishi Kaushal, Karunesh Kaushal

The beneficial provisions of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, including higher interest rates, apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act to ensure constitutional parity. High Courts may exercise writ jurisdiction to correct such errors despite alternative appellate remedies when those remedies are inefficacious and cause undue delay.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3-A, 3-D, 3-G and 3-H(5) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 72, 80 and 105(3) - Land acquisition - Determination of compensation - Enhanced interest as per beneficial provisions - The provisions of the 2013 Act regarding interest are applicable to acquisitions under the 1956 Act to prevent discrimination and ensure just compensation. (Paras 9.1, 9.2, 9.3)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of powers under Article 226 - Exhaustion of alternative remedies - Availability of remedy under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Where alternative remedy is inefficacious and the controversy lies in a narrow compass, the High Court is justified in exercising writ jurisdiction to prevent arbitrariness and delay. (Paras 11, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
Landowners sought enhancement of interest on compensation awarded for land acquired for highway projects. The arbitrator had granted interest at a lower rate provided under the 1956 Act. Petitioners challenged this, arguing for higher interest rates as provided under the 2013 Act, citing parity with similarly situated landowners and the principle of just compensation.

Findings of Court:
The court held that interest on compensation is an integral part of restitution. It concluded that limiting interest to the specific provisions of the 1956 Act, while excluding the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act, amounts to discrimination and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. The court found that as the controversy involved a settled legal position and relied on earlier awards, relegating the petitioners to arbitration appeals would be counterproductive.

Issues: Whether the interest on enhanced compensation for land acquired under the 1956 Act should be governed by the 1956 Act or the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act, and whether a writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the arbitration law.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions for interest and solatium in the 2013 Act are applicable to acquisitions under the 1956 Act to ensure parity and prevent discriminatory treatment under Article 14. When statutory procedures for redressal are inefficacious or when a manifest error has occurred regarding settled parity, the High Court may exercise plenary writ jurisdiction to provide direct relief.

Result: Petition allowed; the award stands modified granting interest at 9% and 15% in accordance with the 2013 Act.

Table of Content
1. factual background and dispute regarding interest on enhanced land compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners argue for interest rates as per 2013 act citing nondiscrimination. (Para 5)
3. respondents contest maintainability of petition due to alternative remedy. (Para 6)
4. applicability of 2013 act's interest provisions to 1956 nh act acquisitions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. writ jurisdiction is maintainable to prevent arbitrariness and ensure parity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court awards statutory interest under sections 72 and 80 of 2013 act. (Para 18 , 19)

1	The date when the judgment was reserved	01.04.2026
2	The date when the judgment is pronounced	23.04.2026
3	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	23.04.2026
4	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5	The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof.	Not applicable

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. The petitioners-landowners, by way of present petition, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to award/pay the statutory benefit of interest @ 9% and 15% respectively on the enhanced compensation from the date of possession till the date of actual payment as per the provisions of Section 72 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, ‘the 2013 Act’) which is pari materia to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for their land acquired under National Highway Act 1956.

FACTS

[2]. Briefly stating, the land of the petitioners measuring 284.98 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.57//12, 57//9, 42//221/, 57//2, 57//10/1, 57//11/2, 42//19/1/2 falling in the Village Tibber, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was acquired for development of Delhi-Amritsar-Katra National Highway No. NE-5 in the stretch of land from Km 371.800 Kms to 406.500 Kms of State of Punjab vide Notifications dated 07.07.2020 and 09.02.2021 issued under Section 3-A and 3-D, respectively of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the 1956 Act’). Thereafter, the Award under Section 3-G(1) of the 1956 Act, was passed by respondent No.4/CALA on 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) assessing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.5,363/- per Marla (Rs.8,58,080/- per acre) being agricultural land.

[3]. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award dated 09.04.2021, the petitioners/landowners sought arbitration invoking Section 3-G(5) of the 1956 Act, wherein vide Award dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), the ld. Arbitrator assessed the market value at the rate Rs.15,00,000/- per acre along with 100% solatium and additional interest @ 12% from the date of notification under Section 3-A upto the Award dated 09.04.2021. The Arbitrator further directed payment of interest @ 9% on enhanced amount from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual deposit instead of interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter on the enhanced amount from the date of possession as per Section 72 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

[4]. In the above circumstances, the present petition had been instituted on behalf of the petitioners-landowners seeking a direction to the respondents to grant interest on the enhanced compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 72 of the 2013 Act, from the date of possession till the date of actual payment.

CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioners-landowners contended that the learned Arbitrator while enhancing the compensation, erred in granting interest @ 9% on enhanced amount from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual deposit, whereas in terms of Section 72 of the 2013 Act, it ought to have awarded interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHHarkesh Manuja, JKuldeep Singh – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentCWP No.38070 of 2025

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
CWP No.38070 of 2025