Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  5463-5466 OF 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.22235-22238 of 2016)

TARLOCHAN SINGH  …APPELLANT  

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.          …RESPONDENTS

O  R  D  E  R

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 In these appeals the appellant has challenged the legality and

correctness of the order dated 14th March, 2016 passed by the High

Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  RA-CR No.196  of

2011  in  FAO  No.254  of  2014,  RA-CR  No.199  of  2011  in  FAO

No.6225 of 2013, RA-CR No.197 of 2014 in FAO No.6226 of 2013

and FAO No.6315 of 2013, whereby the High Court had remanded

1

Page 2

the cases back to the Arbitrator for fresh disposal in terms of the

said order.  

3   The respondents in pursuance of the notification dated 24 th

December, 2004 under Section 3A of the National  Highways Act,

1956 (for short ‘the Act’) acquired land of the appellant measuring

20 Marlas for widening the National Highway (Jalandhar-Pathankot

Road).  The LAC determined compensation of Rupees 1,23,050/- to

be paid to the land owner for the acquired land. The appellant being

aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to him made a

reference  before  the  Commissioner,  Jalandhar  Division,

Jalandhar-cum-Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Arbitrator enhanced

the compensation to Rupees 41 lakhs vide award dated 4th April,

2009.  The appellant  being aggrieved by the said order,  filed an

application  under  Section  34  of  the  Act  before  the  Additional

District Judge, Jalandhar. The District Judge vide order dated 9 th

March, 2010 remanded the matter back to the Arbitrator to make

fresh award.  On 4th June, 2010, the Arbitrator passed an order

enhancing  the  price  of  land  to  Rupees  2.15  lakhs  per  marla,

awarded  severance  charges  at  the  rate  of  Rupees  two  lakh  and

2

Page 3

Rupees  two  hundred  per  feet  for  the  boundary  wall  along  with

interest.

4 The  appellant  filed  review  petition  seeking  separate

compensation for boundary wall, flooring and compensation for loss

of business. By order dated 19th July, 2010, the Arbitrator passed

an award by granting additional compensation at Rupees 150/- per

sq. ft. for the flooring of the land and Rupees five lakh as lump sum

compensation for  shrinking  the  front  portion of  the  land on the

assumption that the business was affected.  

5 The respondents challenged the awards dated 4th June, 2010

and 19th July, 2010 before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

The  Additional  District  Judge  by  his  order  dated  6th July,  2013

upheld the Award.  The appellant filed FAO 6315 of 2013 before the

High Court  of  Punjab & Haryana at  Chandigarh challenging  the

aforesaid two orders of the Arbitrator.  The respondents filed FAO

6225/2013, 6226/2013 and FAO 254/2014 challenging the order

of the Additional District Judge dated 6th July, 2013 and the awards

dated 4th June, 2010 and 19th July, 2010 passed by the Arbitrator.

The High Court dismissed all their appeals on 8th January, 2014

and on 3rd February, 2014.  The respondents filed Special  Leave

3

Page 4

Petition challenging the dismissal of their appeals before this Court

in SLP(C) CC Nos.10645-46 of 2014, which were withdrawn on 14 th

August, 2014.  Thereafter, the respondents filed review applications

before  the  High  Court.   As  noticed  above,  the  High  Court  has

passed  an  order  on  14th March,  2016  allowing  the  review

applications and remitting the matter again to the Arbitrator.

6 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as

well  as  Mr.  Nadkarni,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General.  It  is

clear  that  though  the  land  was  acquired  in  the  year  2004,  the

appellant is yet to receive the full compensation.  The matter is still

pending  before  the  statutory  Arbitrator.  The  matter  requires

expeditious disposal.  We are of the view that it is just and proper to

appoint Hon’ble Shri Justice Mukul Mudgal, former Chief Justice of

Punjab & Haryana High Court, as an Arbitrator in the place of the

statutory Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National

Highways Act,  1956, for  adjudication of  the dispute between the

parties in relation to the quantum of compensation payable to the

land owner. The statutory Arbitrator is directed to send all the case

papers in relation to the aforesaid cases to the learned Arbitrator

appointed as per this order forthwith. The parties are directed to

4

Page 5

appear before the learned Arbitrator on 17th May, 2017 at 11.00

A.M.  along  with  copy  of  this  Order.  The  learned  Arbitrator  is

requested to adjudicate the aforesaid dispute as expeditiously as

possible.  

7 The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.  

8 There will be no order as to costs.  

…………………………………J.     (J. CHELAMESWAR)

    …………………………………J.

   (S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi; April 21, 2017.

5