Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarinder Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 23 April, 2026
121 (3 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) Civil Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.04.2026
Amarinder Singh and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
.......... Respondents
(2) Civil Writ Petition No. 2567 of 2018 (O&M)
Swaran Kanta and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
.......... Respondents
AND
(3) Civil Writ Petition No. 915 of 2018 (O&M)
Satpal Bhathheja and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Shourya Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-2187-2018)
Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-2567-2018)
Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate with
Mr. Satinderpal Singh Dhanesar, Advocate and
Mr. Jashandeep Singh Bains, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-915-2018)
Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate
for the respondent(s)-NHAI (in all cases).
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and "02 connected cases [2]
Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the official respondent(s)-State of Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose off the present three (03) writ petitions
bearing CWP Nos. 2187, 2567 and 915 of 2018, as the same involve
common questions of law and facts. For the sake of convenience, the facts
are being culled out from CWP No. 2187 of 2018.
[2] In CWP No. 2187 of 2018, prayer has been made for setting
aside of:
a) Award dated 18.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 3-
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Bathinda (hereinafter
referred to as “CALA”), whereby the market value with respect to the
acquired land forming part of Village Gill Patti (Urban), Tehsil &
District Bathinda, was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2,870/- per square
yard for residential area.
b) corrigendum dated 18.09.2017 and
c) corrigendum dated 19.09.2017
[3] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners forming part
of the revenue estate of Village Gill Patti, Tehsil & District Bathinda was
previously acquired vide notifications dated 05.07.2013 & 04.02.2014 issued
under Sections 3-A & 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short
“1956 Act”) respectively for the public purpose, namely “for building
(widening / four-laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of
National Highway No. 15, in the stretch of land from Km 265.700 to Km
287.215 (Bhatinda Section) in District Bhatinda”. Award under Section 3G
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [3]
of the 1956 was passed by respondent No. 3/CALA on 07.11.2014 and the
market value for the residential nature of the property in Village Gill Patti
was assessed at the rate of Rs. 17,851.20/- per square yard.
[4] Later, vide subsequent notification dated 08.09.2016 issued
under Section 3-A of the 1956 Act; followed by notification dated
15.02.2017 issued under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act respectively, some
more land owned by the petitioners, forming part of the same revenue estate
of Village Gill Patti (Urban) which was of residential nature, was acquired
for the same public purpose, i.e. “for building (widening / four-laning etc.),
maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 15, in
the stretch of land from Km 265.700 to Km 287.215 (Faridkot-Kotpura-
Bathinda including Faridkot-Kotpura Bypass section) in the District of
Bhatinda”. The CALA vide award dated 18.09.2017 assessed the market
value of residential land at Village Gill Patti at the rate of Rs. 2870/- per
square yards. On the same day, a corrigendum was issued making certain
corrections in the calculations and thereafter another corrigendum was issued
on 19.09.2017 making further corrections.
[5] Dissatisfied with the above award dated 18.09.2017, the
petitioners filed the present writ petition(s).
[6] Impugning the aforesaid award dated 18.09.2017, the short and
material grouse raised on behalf of the petitioners is that respondent
No.3/CALA, while making assessment of compensation, failed to take into
consideration the previous award dated 07.11.2014 which related to the prior
acquisition of the land owned by the petitioners forming part of the same
revenue estate of Village Gill Patti. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends
that the land acquired under the earlier award was of similar nature, i.e.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [4]
residential, and the market value thereof was assessed by the CALA at the
rate of ₹17,851.20 per square yard. Learned counsel further submits that the
subsequent acquisition proceedings pertained only to the land which ought to
have been acquired under the first notification itself, but could not be so
acquired due to an error on the part of the respondents while widening the
existing road. It is, thus, argued that the petitioners at least are entitled to the
same amount of compensation as was awarded in the previous acquisition
vide award dated 07.11.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore,
submits that the award passed by respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside.
[7] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s)-NHAI
submits that since the award dated 18.09.2017 in the present case was passed
in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 26 of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”), and therefore, any price paid
as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an
earlier occasion in the district was not to be taken into account and as such,
relying upon the same, respondent No. 3/ CALA rightly did not consider the
previous award dated 07.11.2014 for the purpose of determination of the
market value in the case in hand in relation to the present acquisition. For
reference, Section 26 of the 2013 Act is extracted hereunder:-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in
assessing and determining the market value of the land,
namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or
agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where
the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated
in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [5]
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of
lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects, whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value
shall be the date on which the notification has been issued
under section II.
Explanation 1. – The average sale price referred to in
clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale
deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type
of area in the near village or near vicinity area during
immediately preceding three years of the year in which
such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2. – For determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number
of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the
highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into
account.
Explanation 3. – While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to
in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as
compensation for land acquired under the provisions of
this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be
taken into consideration.
Explanation 4. – While determining the market value
under this section and the average sale price referred to
in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which
in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual
prevailing market value may be discounted for the
purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1)
shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First
Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that–
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [6]transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar
land are not available for the immediately preceding
three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority,the State Government concerned shall specify the floor
price or minimum price per unit area of the said land
based on the price calculated in the manner specified in
sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land
situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers
its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have
been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition
of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five
per cent, of the value so calculated under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no
case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been
acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is
deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-
section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation
of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all
necessary steps to revise and update the market value of
the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that
area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall
ensure that the market value determined for acquisition
of any land or property of an educational institution
established and administered by a religious or linguistic
minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate
the right to establish and administer educational
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [7]institutions of their choice.”
[7.1] Learned counsel for the respondent(s)-NHAI thus submits that
the award dated 18.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 3-CALA in terms of
Explanation 2 to Section 26 of the 2013 Act by taking into account the
average sale price against one half of the total number of sale deeds fetching
highest sale price was wholly justified and in consonance with the provisions
of Section 26 of the 2013 Act and as such, calls for no interference. Learned
counsel for the respondents further contends that against the award of
respondent No.3/CALA, the petitioners were having the remedy to pursue
arbitration in terms of Section 3-G(5) of the 1956 Act, therefore the present
writ is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed outrightly.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
[8] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
[9] Before proceeding further, it is necessary to re-capitulate the
notifications dated 05.07.2013 & 08.09.2016 issued under Sections 3-A of
the 1956 Act pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Gill Patti, which, as
per comparative chart, are extracted hereunder:-
Village Notification Area Public LAC
under Sections Purpose Award
3-A; 3-D Date /
Amount for
residential
kind of
land
Gill 05.07.2013; 8.45 hectares For building 07.11.2014
Patti 04.02.2014 was sought (widening / &
under Section 3- four-laning Rs.
D; etc.), 17851.20
maintenance, per square
7.20 hectares management yard
was only and operation
acquired under of National
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and "02 connected cases [8]
Section 3G Highway No.
15, in the
stretch of land
from Km
265.700 to Km
287.215
(Bhatinda
Section) in
District
Bhatinda
Gill 08.09.2016; 1.5969 hectares For building 18.09.2017
Patti 15.02.2017; (widening / & Rs.
four-laning 2870/- per
etc.), square yard
maintenance,
management
and operation
of National
Highway No.
15, in the
stretch of land
from Km
265.700 to Km
287.215
(Faidkot-
Kotpura-
Bathinda
including
Faidkot-
Kotpura
Bypass
section) in the
District of
Bhatinda
[10] A perusal of the record reveals that vide notification dated
04.02.2014 issued under Section 3D, land measuring 8.45 acres was
acquired for widening of the National Highway. However, the area of land
ultimately notified under Section 3G for the said village was only 7.20 acres.
Further, vide award dated 07.11.2014, the market value was assessed on the
basis of the report submitted by the District Price Fixation Committee, which
indicates that the procedure adopted by respondent No. 3/CALA for
determination of market value was akin to the procedure adopted under the
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [9]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, the determination of market
value in respect of the later acquisition, culminating in award dated
18.09.2017, was admittedly carried out in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 26 of the 2013 Act. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the plea raised on behalf of the
respondents seeking reliance upon Explanation 3 to Section 26, for
disregarding the previous award dated 07.11.2014 while assessing
compensation, cannot be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
[11] A comparative perusal of both the awards shows that the land
acquired under both acquisition proceedings formed part of the same
revenue estate of Village Gill Patti, was of the same nature, i.e. residential,
and was acquired for the same public purpose, namely, widening of National
Highway No. 54 (earlier NH-15). It is pertinent to note that in the award
dated 18.09.2017, the same has been described as a “Supplementary
Award”, while the earlier award dated 07.11.2014 has been referred to as the
“Parent Award” therein. Even in subsequent notification dated 22.04.2017, it
was specifically recorded that the notifications issued under Section 3A
dated 08.09.2016, Section 3D dated 15.02.2017 and Section 3G dated
22.04.2017 were supplementary proceedings to Award No. 1 dated
07.11.2014. Relevant portion of the said notification is reproduced
hereunder:
“It is inform that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of section 3(D) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48
of 1956) and further in pursuance of sub section (2) of section
3(D) of the said Act, the Central Government vide Gazette
Notification no. S.O. 519(E) dated 15.02.2017, has declared that
on publication of this notification, the land specified in the
schedule of the notification no. S.O. 519(E) dated 15.02.2017DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [10]published in the Gazette of India, extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3
sub section (ii), shall vest absolutely in the Central Government
free from all encumbrances, for building(widening/four laning,
etc) maintenance, management and operation of National
Highway no.15(New NH-54) on the stretch of land from Km
265.700 to 287.215 (Section Faridkot-Kotkapura-Bathinda Road)
in the District of Bathinda in the state of Punjab. Clarification is
made that earlier published 3A, 3D and current 3G are
supplementary proceeding pertaining to Award No. 1 of 2014-
dated 07.11.2014″
[11.1] These facts clearly establish that the object behind both
acquisitions was one and the same, namely widening of NH-54, and insofar
as the stretch of road passing through Village Gill Patti was concerned, the
intended widening was up to a depth of 15 metres. Ideally, the entire width
of the road ought to have been acquired in one go; however, due to errors in
calculation on the part of the local revenue staff of respondent No. 2, the
land was acquired only partially. Thus, although the acquisitions were
undertaken through separate proceedings, the purpose remained the same,
and the landowners whose lands were acquired thereunder constituted one
homogeneous class. In such circumstances, the subsequent award dated
18.09.2017 was to be treated as part and parcel of the earlier award dated
7.11.2014 and the respondent No.3/CALA ought to have awarded the
compensation in terms of the market value assessed vide award no.1 dated
07.11.2014 by applying suitable appreciation for the time gap between the
two acquisitions-notifications under Section 3-A of the 1956 Act.
[12] Even otherwise, in the case in hand, the contention raised on
behalf of the respondents, based on Explanation 3 to Section 26 of the 2013
Act, is wholly misplaced. A plain reading of the said Explanation makes it
clear that it applies only where the market value is being determined under
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [11]Section 26, and in such cases, previous awards passed under this act, i.e. the
2013 Act are not to be taken into consideration.
[12.1] In the present case, however, the previous award dated
07.11.2014 was passed under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act,
1956, and the compensation therein was determined in accordance with the
provisions of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the said award does not fall within the
ambit of the bar contemplated under Explanation 3 to Section 26 of the 2013
Act. Thus, in the absence of any statutory bar against awards passed under
statutes other than the 2013 Act, the award dated 07.11.2014 could not have
been ignored and the same ought to have been duly relied upon.
[12.2] Moreover, as determined above, since the supplementary award
dated 18.09.2017 was to be treated as the part and parcel of the parent award
dated 07.11.2014, the determination of compensation in the said
supplementary award made in terms of Section 26 of the 2013 Act being
erroneous in the humble opinion of this Court; Explanation 3 to Section 26
being applicable only in respect of the market value determined in
accordance with the provisions of Section 26, the contention raised on behalf
of the respondents by relying upon the same, becomes wholly devoid of
merit.
[13] Furthermore, in the letter dated 15.03.2016 issued by
respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 as well as to the Principal Secretaries of
Public Works Department of all the States and Union Territories, the
procedure for acquiring the missing plots/lands from the bulk acquisition had
been laid down. It was specifically provided therein that, in such cases, the
missing land or plots shall be acquired through consent, at rates equivalent to
the maximum compensation determined by the Competent Authority for
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [12]similar land in the adjoining areas, with the landowners also being entitled to
any enhancement awarded by the Arbitrator or by the higher Courts.
Relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder:
” I am directed to say that whenever land is required for the purpose of
National Highways, provisions of National Highways (NH) Act, 1956 are
invoked. At times, some of the plots have been observed to have been missed
from the bulk land acquisition. It is initially due to deviation in the
boundaries while interpreting the revenue map, change in khasra number
as a result of land consolidation process and poor maintenance of revenue
of land and poor records……..
2. Proposals have been received from some of the Project Implementation
Authorities to acquire these missing plots through private negotiations. It is
mainly to avoid delays in handing over the sites to the concessionaries; It is
contemplated that if such lands are acquired through NH Act, 1956 it will
cause further delay in handing over the sites to the concessionaries.
Moreover, this may also result into contractual claims by the contractors.
As generally, it is felt that land acquisition of these missing/additional plots
through consent would be helpful in several ways to achieve the goals as
follows:-
a) The land could be taken in possession immediately for implementing
the scheme;
b) Inherent delays notice in the acquisition of land could be avoided;
c)The expenditure incurred on publication of notifications publication
under Section 3(a), 3(A) and 3(D) under the NH Act, 1956 in the local
newspapers is saved
d)These would be no court case challenging a land acquisition causing
abnormal delays in the process;
e) The lump sum award could be given straight away.
Proposal has been considered in this Ministry and it has been decided that
the publication of land through consent may be adopted as an exception,
preferably oral quantum of land acquisition in a construction package, only
in the following:-
1) Missing plots which are left out from the bulk acquisition: and
2) Additional land required due to alternation of alignment at
implementation stage.
However, for acquiring the land through consent enough protective
mechanism is respect of rates to be adopted and establishing the rightful
ownership. For this is following procedure/guidelines may be followed
henceforth in cases of xx xx consent:-
***********
(iii) The legal owner shall be consulted by the Project Implementing
Authority. Prior to their formal consent, the concerned Project
Implementation Authority shall process each case and obtain the approval of
the Competent Authority. The rates for the consent shall be the maximum of
compensation rates declared by the Competent Authority for similar type of
land in the adjoining area or the circle rate/guideline value of similar land
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [13]use, if notified by revenue authorities for such area;
(iv) In order not to deprive a land owner who has willingly given his land on
mutual consent, of the benefits of an enhanced award which may be declared
by an arbitrator and accepted by the Project Implementing Authority
subsequent to the date of agreement for sale, the enhancement rate awarded
by the arbitrator for the same nature and type of land in adjoining area
during bulk acquisition shall be paid to such a landowner……”
[14] Moreover, further reading of the award dated 18.09.2017
reveals that the compensation was determined on the basis of assessment
made by a committee comprising the Collector Land Acquisition, Tehsil
Bathinda, the Executive Engineer, PWD B&R Division-I, and the
empanelled Central Government Counsel and respondent No. 3/CALA
merely endorsed the determination so made, without independently applying
its own mind to the matter. Relevant portion of the said award is reproduced
hereunder:
“The Patwaris produced the Collector Rates and Sale Deeds for the areas
under Acquisition on the aforementioned basis for three categories of land
being acquired namely, Agriculture, Gair Mumkin Residential and Gair
Mumkin Commercial. These were duly endorsed for the Segment Code by the
Registry Clerks of Sub tehsils Bathinda vide letter no. 1888/RC dated
14/09/2017 and Goniana vide Letter No.1081 dated 31/08/2017. The
Committee comprising of the Collector Land Acquisition, Tehsildar
Bathinda, and the empanelled Central Government Counsel assisting
Collector Land Acquisition, examined the Registries that were presented by
the Patwaris and the Registry Clerks. In accordance with Explanation 4 to
Section 26, with the help of Google Maps as well as the Patwaris Latha,
Registries of khasra numbers that were too far from the area under
acquisition were identified and excluded from the three year Chaant as these
were found to be not representative of similar type of land to the area being
acquired.
***********
…… In order to examine the distance of the revenue estates, the Committee
comprising Collector Land Acquisition, Tehsildar Bathinda, XEN PWD B&R
Division 1, examined the map of the revenue estates that are part of the
Acquisition along with Letter No.1104 dated 19.07.2017 from XEN PWD
B&R Division 1; and it was found that Balhar Vinju was the closest revenue
estate to Harraipur, Jeeda, Amargarh and Goniana Khurd……
On examining the revenue map and the Letter No.1104 dated 19.07.2017
from XEN PWD B&R Division 1, the Committee found that Bohkhra is
situated in between the revenue estates of Gill Patti and Balhar Vinju and
thus XEN PWD was tasked with the responsibility of providing the detailed
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [14]distance map in the case of village Bohkhra. As per the distance map
provided by XEN PWD B&R Division 1 dated 14.09.2017, it was made clear
that Bohkhra is 1.4 Kms from Gill Patti and 2.2 Kms from Balhar Vinju……”
[14.1] Significantly, neither the provisions of the 1956 Act nor those
of the 2013 Act contemplate such a procedure for determination of
compensation. The respondent No.3/CALA being the statutory authority, the
statutory duty to determine the compensation was vested in it which it failed
to discharge. In view of such facts and circumstances, the objection raised on
behalf of the respondents regarding the maintainability of the present writ
petition does not merit acceptance especially when the legal position with
regard to the exercise of writ jurisdiction stands well settled through a catena
of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court is plenary in nature and may be invoked in
appropriate and exceptional cases, and that the existence of an alternative
remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of such
jurisdiction
[15] In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision rendered in
the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Versus Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
and others reported as 2003(2)SCC107 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:
” So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of
recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore
the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it
to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an
alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an
appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High
Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies;
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental
Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii)
where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires
of an Act and is challenged. [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1999(1) RCR (Civil) 220 : (1998) 8 SCC
11]. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [15]
Moreover, as noted, the petitioners’ dealership, which is their bread and
butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In
such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed
relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of
initiating arbitration proceedings.”
[15.1] Further, in the case of Ram and Shyam Company v. State of
Haryana and Others, (1985) 3 S.C.C. 267, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down that ordinarily it is true that the Court has imposed a restraint in its
own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where the party
invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More
often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion
of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than
rule of law. At any rate, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court.
[15.2] Even further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014)
1 S.C.C. 603, spelt out at least five illustrative and non-exhaustive
exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of remedies as follows:-
(i) Where remedy available under statute is not effective but
only mere formality with no substantial relief; or
(ii) Where statutory authority not acted in accordance with
provisions of enactment in question, or ;
(iii) Where statutory authority acted in defiance of
fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or;
(iv) Where statutory authority resorted to invoke provisions
which are repealed, or;
(v) Where statutory authority passed an order in total
violation of principles of natural justice.
[16] The case in hand falls under exception (ii) as respondent
No.3/CALA has not only acted in total violation of the guidelines issued by
respondent no.1 vide letter dated 15.03.2016 but has altogether failed to
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [16]
discharge it’s duty in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
[17] It is a well-established principle of law that where a statute
prescribes that a particular act must be performed in a specified manner, the
validity of such an act depends upon the same being carried out strictly in
that prescribed manner alone. The same was also reiterated in the case of
State of Kerela and ors. v. Kerela Rare Earth and Minerals Limited and
ors reported as (2016) 6 SCC 323. Relevant excerpt is reproduced
hereinunder:
“It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing
to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid
the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone….”
[18] In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, respondent
no.4/CALA being the statutory authority vested with the responsibility to
determine compensation could not have delegated the same, whether wholly
or in part, in the absence of any enabling provision under the 1956 Act or the
2013 Act to that effect. Moreover, vide supplementary award dated
18.09.2017 pertaining to subsequent notification, respondent No. 3/CALA
has awarded the compensation which is about 1/6th of what was awarded to
the petitioners vide award no.1 dated 07.11.2014. Once, the then CALA had
awarded a particular amount for their lands to the petitioners under the
parent award, respondent No. 3/CALA could not have awarded amount
lower than that already awarded. At best, considering the escalation in land
prices, the compensation could have been enhanced; however, under no
circumstances could a lesser amount have been awarded. The impugned
award, having been passed in contravention of the instructions dated
15.03.2016 and dehors the statutory mandate, results in hostile
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 2187 of 2018 (O&M) and “02 connected cases [17]
discrimination against the petitioners and, therefore, cannot be sustained in
law.
[19] Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. The
award dated 18.09.2017, corrigendum dated 18.09.2017 and the
corrigendum dated 19.09.2017 passed by respondent No.4/CALA is set aside
and the petitioners are hereby held entitled to the benefits of compensation
as awarded vide award dated 07.11.2014. However, since the subsequent
award was passed on 18.09.2017 i.e. after 01.01.2015, petitioners are also
held entitled for the award of solatium @100% in terms of Section 30 read
with Schedule I of the 2013 Act, clause 4.6(iii)(a) of the guidelines dated
28.12.2017 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Government of India and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Sanwarmal Singhaniya Memorial Trust & Anr. Vs. National
Highways Authority of India (Misc. Application Diary No.45267/2023).
Further, in terms of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and
others (2026 INSC 291), the petitioners are also entitled for interest and
interest on solatium from the date of award i.e. 18.09.2017 till the release of
interest as well as interest on solatium.
[20] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
April 23, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
DINESH KUMAR
2026.05.06 19:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
