National Highways Authority Of ... vs Rai Singh And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14846 P&H

                                                                            2023:PHHC:114692

                               In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
                                               At Chandigarh


                                                                   CR-5061-2023 (O&M)
                                                                   Date of Decision:-01.09.2023


                 National Highways Authority of India                             ....Petitioner

                                                    Versus

                 Rai Singh and others                                            ... Respondents



                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL



                 Present:-        Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate;
                                  Mr. B.P.S. Thakur, Advocate and
                                  Ms. Dilpreet Kaur and Ms. Tanya, Advocates for the petitioner.

                                                    *****

                 GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner herein assails order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed

by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the objections filed

by the petitioner to execution petition have been dismissed.

2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that the land

belonging to respondents No.1 to 7 as well as some other land owners had

been acquired by the petitioner - National Highways Authority of India for

widening National Highway No.152 (Kaithal - Narwana Section). The

competent authority passed its award on 17.3.2015. While some of the

landowners filed application under Section 3G(5) of National Highway Act,

1956 and invoked arbitration for enhancement of the award, respondents No.1

to 7 had not moved any such application under Section 3G(5) of National

MOHAN SINGH 2023.09.01 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5061-2023 (O&M) (2) 2023:PHHC:114692

Highway Act, 1956. The Arbitrator-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner,

Kaithal, while disposing of the matter in respect of the other landowners,

passed his award dated 24.5.2019 (Annexure P-2), wherein the market value

of the land was not enhanced but the solatium as had been granted by

Competent Authority, Land Acquisition @30% was enhanced to 100% in

terms of letter No.11011/30/2015-LA dated 29.4.2015. The said other

landowners were accordingly paid the enhanced solatium. It was thereafter

that respondents No.1 to 7 moved an execution petition before the District

Judge, Kaithal for enforcement of award dated 24.5.2019 passed by the

Arbitrator-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal in respect of the

other landowners. The petitioner - NHAI filed objections against the

execution petition mainly on the ground that the execution was not

maintainable as they were not party before the Arbitrator-cum-Additional

Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and had never challenged the compensation as

awarded by Competent Authority, Land Acquisition. The Executing Court

considered the submissions and while placing reliance upon a judgment

passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and another

Versus Tarsem Singh and others, 2019 (9) SCC 304, dismissed the objection

petition.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the impugned

order 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) cannot sustain inasmuch as there was no

award of the Arbitrator in favour of the private respondents, who had never

ever approached the arbitrator seeking any kind of enhancement and that the

award passed in favour of some other landowners cannot be executed on the

same terms in respect of the landowners, who had never chosen to approach

the Arbitrator seeking any kind of enhancement.

MOHAN SINGH 2023.09.01 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5061-2023 (O&M) (3) 2023:PHHC:114692

4. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.

5. While it may be correct that the private respondents had not approached the

Arbitrator seeking any kind of enhancement of compensation, but the present

case is a case where the market value of land was not enhanced by the

Arbitrator and it is only the other statutory benefits i.e. the quantum of

solatium, which has been enhanced from 30% to 100% as per letter

No.11011/30/2015-LA dated 29.4.2015. The statutory benefits flow

automatically once the market value of the land has been assessed. The

petitioner is expected to be fair in the matter of payment of compensation for

acquired land and not raise hurdles on the basis of technicalities. Once a

decision has been taken raising the quantum of solatium from 30% to 100%,

it was expected of the petitioner to have itself deposited the enhanced rate of

solatium in the bank accounts of the landowners rather than forcing the

landowners to move an execution petition. Still further, this Court finds that

even after the Executing Court had passed an order, the petitioner - NHAI

has chosen to approach this Court by way of filing the instant petition. This

Court can hardly appreciate such like conduct on the part of the petitioner.

The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

                 01.09.2023                                           ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
                 mohan                                                       Judge

                               Whether speaking /reasoned         Yes / No

                               Whether Reportable                 Yes / No




MOHAN SINGH
2023.09.01 19:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment