[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Shiv Raj Singh (Now Deceased) Through ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1449-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
Union of India and Another
... Petitioners
Versus
Shiv Raj Singh (now deceased) through LRs and Others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Puneet Sareen, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d).
None for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 whereby the
application filed by the decree-holder i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) for
directing the judgment-debtors i.e. petitioners herein to deposit the decretal
amount considering one marla equivalent to 207 sq. ft. instead of 272 sq. ft.
and one acre equivalent to 160 marlas, was allowed.
2. Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the decree-
holder i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) herein filed an application under
Section 3(A to G) of the National Highways Act,1956 read with Rules 2004
as framed upto date thereunder for enhancement of compensation of the land
acquired vide award passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. The Central Government had
issued gazette notification in connection with the development and widening
of Jalandhar-Pathankot Section of NH-1A KM 26.00 to 117.150 KM and
Pathankot to Jammu Section from KM 4.000 to 16.350 in the State of Punjab
and the Competent Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian,
District Hoshiarpur had passed the award in respect of the land belonging to
the decree-holder i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) herein measuring 01 Kanal
08 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.397 Khatauni No.503 Khasra No.53//8/2
(1-13), 13/1(1-4) as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 situated on
National Highway from Pathankot to Jalandhar falling within the revenue
estate of village Bhangala Hadbast No.322, Tehsil Mukerian, District
Hoshiarpur. The application for enhancement was allowed by the Arbitrator
vide award dated 06.01.2010. In the award itself the Arbitrator had held as
under :
"Unit Marla will be of 207 sq. ft. and 160 Marlas in an Acre.
1. Price of land is enhanced @ ₹75.00 Lacs per acre for Nehri
2. 9% interest to be paid at enhanced amount from date of
acquisition if paid within 60 days from announcement of
Award.
3. 15% interest to be paid on enhancement of amount if paid
after 60 days from date of announcement of Award."
3. The decree-holder i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) herein filed an
execution petition. It is apt to notice that there was no challenge laid by the
petitioners herein to the award passed by the Arbitrator. Partially the amount
was deposited by the judgment-debtors (petitioners herein). Since there was
an error in the calculation and a marla was treated equivalent to 272 sq. ft., an
application was filed by the decree-holder i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) for
directing the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein to deposit the amount by
making the calculations treating a marla equivalent to 207 sq. ft. and not 272
sq. ft. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated
01.11.2019 (Annexure P-8) the application was allowed holding that the
Arbitrator had specifically mentioned that one marla would be equivalent to
207 sq. ft. and 160 marlas would be equivalent to an acre and the Executing
Court had to execute the award as it is and could not alter or amend the award
passed by the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition
has been filed.
4. Vide order dated 16.05.2022, while issuing notice of motion, the
judgment debtors i.e. the petitioners herein were directed to deposit an amount
of ₹28,67,691/- before the Executing Court, which was to be kept in an FDR,
and disbursement was to be made subject to the final outcome of the present
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein
would contend that as per general perception, one marla is equivalent to 272
sq. ft. It is further the contention that since the application has been filed by
the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein to which a reply has been filed by
respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian
hence the issue should be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court. Learned
counsel for the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein has candidly admitted
that no challenge was ever laid to the award passed by the Arbitrator on
06.01.2010.
6. Per contra learned counsel for decree-holder respondent
Nos.1(a) to 1(d) has contended that since the judgment debtors i.e. petitioners
herein had accepted the award dated 06.01.2010 without laying any challenge,
they now cannot turn around to say that the finding given by the Arbitrator
that one marla was equivalent to 207 sq. ft. is erroneous and that the Executing
Court should now re-adjudicate the said issue.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case the award passed by the Arbitrator clearly
reveals that a specific finding was given by the Arbitrator stating that one
marla was equivalent to 207 sq. ft. The said finding has been given in bold in
the award hence it is not a case where the same could have been missed by
either of the parties. The argument of learned counsel for the judgment debtors
i.e. petitioners herein that the entire issue should be re-adjudicated upon by
the Executing Court as this is a question to be determined by the Executing
Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be
accepted. The Arbitrator had given a specific finding holding that one marla
was equivalent to 207 sq. ft. The judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein chose
not to challenge the said award and to accept it as it is. It does not now lie in
the mouth of judgment debtors i.e. petitioners herein to say that one marla is
equivalent to 272 sq. ft.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed off.
21.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
