VIMAL KUMAR 2023.08.01 19:35 2023: PHHC:098249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3904-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.07.2023 Sonia Bansal ... Appellant Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been preferred by Sonia Bansal against common order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby while dismissing the objection petition filed on behalf of the appellant, the award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Arbitrator has been set aside.
A few facts necessary to notice are that the land belonging to the appellant had been acquired under Section 3-A of the National Highway Act for the purpose of "building (widening/four laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.5 (new), Kharar to Morinda Road (Ludhiana-Chandigarh Section)". |The Competent Authority -cum- SDM, Kharar announced its award awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2.70 crore per acre. The appellant invoked arbitration and the Arbitrator vide its award dated 24.09.2019 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-3904-2023 (O&M) -2-
VIMAL KUMAR 2023.08.01 19:35 remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority -cum- SDM, Kharar for a fresh decision while noticing certain irregularities. Thereafter, the appellant as well as respondents filed separate petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which were decided by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide impugned order dated 15.05.2023. The Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, while allowing the objection petition filed on behalf of the respondent, has dismissed the objection petition filed on behalf of the appellant and set aside the award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Arbitrator holding that the Arbitrator had no power to remand the matter.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has virtually been left with no remedy so as to seek enhancement of the compensation. Learned senior counsel has, however, pressed into service a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. A. Parthasarathy & others Vs. E. Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2022 (2) RC (Civil) 329, which suggests that in such a situation, the High Court may either relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits. The said judgment has also been relied upon by a Coordinate Bench in FAO-413-2022 titled 'Union of India & another Vs. Atma Singh & others' decided on 21.04.2023.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Raghubir Singh Madan, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2/NHAI, whereas Mr. Inderpreet | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-3904-2023 (O&M) -3-
VIMAL KUMAR 2023.08.01 19:35 Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4.
Mr. Raghubir Singh Madan, leaned counsel representing respondent No.2/NHAI has not disputed the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. A. Parthasarathy's case (supra).
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and while bearing in mind the ratio in Dr. A. Parthasarathy's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the best course open in the present circumstances would be to relegate the parties for fresh arbitration. Thus, the appellant would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Divisional Commissioner concerned so as to initiate fresh adjudication.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
31.07.2023 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document