TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5463-5466 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 21, 2017

                                                            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 the cases back to the Arbitrator for fresh  disposal  in  terms  of
the said order.
3        The  respondents  in  pursuance  of  the  notification  dated  24th
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  9th  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 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  Petition  challenging
the dismissal of their appeals before this Court in SLP(C)  CC  Nos.10645-46
of 2014, which  were  withdrawn  on  14th  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 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.