IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-1665-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 ****

Sukhdip Singh alias Sukhdeep Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Government of India and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Chander Kant Rana, Advocate &

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. K.S. Kang, Advocate for respondent No.2-NHAI.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present is revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda (Annexure P-4) vide which the application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been allowed and the operation of the Award dated 12.03.2019 has been stayed till the disposal of the objection petition under Section 34 of the Act, subject to the petitioner i.e. NHAI/Govt. of India depositing entire enhanced amount of compensation (as per the arbitral award) with the executing court within a period of two months along with the calculation sheet of the calculated amount, in the shape of fixed deposit or a bank guarantee and the same shall be released to the landowners only after the decision of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a land-loser whose land was acquired. After the award was passed by learned Arbitrator, the respondent-National Highways Authority of India preferred objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. These objections were filed in the year 2019 along with an application under Section 36(2) of the Act. By way of the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), learned Additional District Judge has stayed the operation of the impugned award, subject to deposit of the entire enhanced amount of compensation (as per the arbitral award) with the Executing Court along with the calculation sheet of the calculated amount in the shape of a fixed deposit or a Bank Guarantee. It was further so observed that the aforesaid amount shall be released to the landowners only after the decision of the petition under Section 34 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the limited portion of the aforesaid order whereby the amount shall not be released to the petitioner till the decision of the petition under Section 34 of the Act. He further submitted that the petition under Section 34 of the Act has been pending for the last 7 years which has caused acute prejudice to the petitioner. He prayed that at least 50% of the aforesaid amount be released to the petitioner out of the aforesaid amount deposited by the respondent-NHAI on furnishing of adequate security in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26913-26915 of 2025 titled as “Vineet Sharma and another Vs. National Highway Authority of India and others” decided on 23.03.2026

3. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Kang, Advocate has caused appearance and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent-NHAI and submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Sharma and another Vs. National Highway Authority of India and others case (Supra) wherein a detailed order passed by this Court in a bunch of Civil Revisions, with the lead case bearing No. CR- 2594-2025 titled as “National Highways Authority of India versus Piara Lal and others” decided on 04.09.2025 was modified to the limited extent. He however submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the aforesaid 50% of the amount, since the objections under Section 34 of the Act are now required to be decided. He submitted that the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Sharma and another Vs. Natio