National Highways Authority Of India And Another vs Manik Dawar And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
FAO-4994-20
023 (O&M) and connected matt
ters
Sr. No. 245, 255 (Bunch m
matter)
IN THE
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
B AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
H
FA
AO-4994-2023 (O&M)
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Manik Dawar
and others
…Respondents
FAO-147-2024 (O&M)
F
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Jaswant Singh
h and others
…Respondents
AO-4993-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
M/s Swastik E
Enterprises and others
…Respondents
AO-4997-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Ankur Dawar
and others
…Respondents
AO-5008-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Gurbachan Ka
aur and others
…Respondents
AO-5068-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Gurdip Singh a
and others
…Respondents
AO-5069-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Mukesh Kuma
ar and others
…Respondents
AO-5071-2023 (O&M)
FA
other …Appellants
National Highw
ways Authority of India and ano
Versus
Nand Lal Gupt
ta and others
…Respondents
AO-5073-2023 (O&M)
FA
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 1 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Manjeet Kaur and others …Respondents
FAO-5473-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Amarjit Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5475-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Ranjit Kaur and others …Respondents
FAO-5476-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Harvinder Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5477-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Buta Singh Gill and others …Respondents
FAO-5717-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Gurmel Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5718-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Pankush Mittal and others …Respondents
FAO-5726-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Nand Lal Gupta and others …Respondents
FAO-5722-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Kulwinder Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5724-2023 (O&M)
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 2 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Hardev Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5727-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Karnail Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and others…Respondents
FAO-6047-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Madhav Gupta and others …Respondents
FAO-170-2024 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Harish Jain and others …Respondents
FAO-5997-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Swaran Singh Gill and others …Respondents
FAO-6048-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Seema Aggarwal and others …Respondents
FAO-6049-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Sadhu Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-6052-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Karnail Kaur and others …Respondents
FAO-6053-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Dimple Mittal and others …Respondents
FAO-6054-2023 (O&M)
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 3 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Bhagwant Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-6062-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Suresh Kumar Tedi and others …Respondents
FAO-6657-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar and others …Respondents
FAO-6745-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Jindal and others …Respondents
FAO-5007-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Neelam Dawar and others …Respondents
FAO-5721-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Gurvinder Singh and others …Respondents
FAO-5749-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Sandeep Kumar and others …Respondents
FAO-5754-2023 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and others …Appellants
Versus
Satish Kumar and others …Respondents
FAO-1619-2025 (O&M)
National Highways Authority of India and another …Appellants
Versus
Pardeep Gupta and others …Respondents
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 4 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 01.10.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 05.11.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 05.11.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
Full
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full
judgment, and reasons thereof
Not applicable
CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate,
Mr. Manav Singal, Advocate,
Mr. Nishant Atri, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate,
Ms. Jasneen Kaur, Advocate,
Ms. Nishtha Narang, Advocate,
for the appellants in FAO-5008, 5068, 5069, 5071, 5073, 5476,
5477, 5717, 5718, 5726, 5722, 5724, 5727, 6047, 5997, 6048,
6049, 6052, 6054, 6062, 5721 of 2023.
Mr. Mandeep Nagpal, Advocate and
Mr. Damanpreet Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents in FAO-1619-2025, FAO-170-2024, FAO-
5477-2023.
Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Advocate for
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate,
for the land owners.
in FAO-4994, 4997 and XOBJC-9-2024
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 in FAO-5473-2023
for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO-5475-2023.
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate,
Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate,
Mr. Abhinav Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent No.1 in FAO-5071-2023.
Mr. B.S.Sudan, Advocate,
for the appellant in FAO-5717-2023
for the respondent-NHAI in FAO-126-2024.
*
LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral)
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 5 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
By this common judgment, a bunch of appeals being FAO-
4994-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Manik
Dawar and others, FAO-147-2024 National Highways Authority of India
and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and others, FAO-4993-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. M/s Swastik Enterprises and
others, FAO-4997-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another
Vs. Ankur Dawar and others, FAO-5008-2023 National Highways
Authority of India and another Vs. Gurbachan Kaur and others, FAO-5068-
2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Gurdip Singh
and others, FAO-5069-2023 National Highways Authority of India and
another Vs. Mukesh Kumar and others, FAO-5071-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Nand Lal Gupta and others,
FAO-5073-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs.
Manjeet Kaur and others, FAO-5473-2023 National Highways Authority of
India and another Vs. Amarjit Singh and others, FAO-5475-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Ranjit Kaur and others, FAO-
5476-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs.
Harvinder Singh and others, FAO-5477-2023 National Highways Authority
of India and others Vs.Buta Singh Gill and others, FAO-5717-2023
National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Gurmel Singh and
others, FAO-5718-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another
Vs. Pankush Mittal and others, FAO-5726-2023 National Highways
Authority of India and another Vs. Nand Lal Gupta and others, FAO-5722-
2023 National Highways Authority of India and others Vs. Kulwinder
Singh and others, FAO-5724-2023 National Highways Authority of India
and another Vs. Hardev Singh and others, FAO-5727-2023 National
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 6 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Karnail Singh and others,
FAO-6047-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs.
Madhav Gupta and others, FAO-170-2024 National Highways Authority of
India and another Vs. Harish Jain and others, FAO-5997-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Swaran Singh Gill and others,
FAO-6048-2023 National Highways Authority of India and others Vs.
Seema Aggarwal and others, FAO-6049-2023 National Highways Authority
of India and others Vs. Sadhu Singh and others, FAO-6052-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Karnail Kaur and others,
FAO-6053-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs.
Dimple Mittal and others, FAO-6054-2023 National Highways Authority of
India and another Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others, FAO-6062-2023
National Highways Authority of India and others Vs. Suresh Kumar Tedi
and others, FAO-6657-2023 National Highways Authority of India and
others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others, FAO-6745-2023 National Highways
Authority of India and others Vs. Om Prakash Jindal and others, FAO-
5007-2023 National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Neelam
Dawar and others, FAO-5721-2023 National Highways Authority of India
and another Vs. Gurvinder Singh and others, FAO-5749-2023 National
Highways Authority of India and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar and others,
FAO-5754-2023 National Highways Authority of India and others Vs.
Satish Kumar and others and FAO-1619-2025 National Highways
Authority of India and another Vs. Pardeep Gupta and others are being
disposed of, as common questions of fact and law arise therein. For the sake
of brevity, facts of FAO No.4994-2023 ( National Highways Authority of
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 7 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
India and another Vs. Manik Dawar and others) are being taken into
consideration.
2. Under challenge in the present appeal is an award dated
January 13, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner,
Patiala Division, Patiala whereby the learned Arbitrator enhanced the
compensation for the acquired land payable to the landowners. Also under
challenge in the present appeal is a judgment dated March 1, 2023 whereby
learned Additional District Judge rejected the application under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as,
‘the 1996 Act’) filed by the appellant-NHAI.
3. The acquired land in question is situated in village Malakpur,
Tehsil Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.
4. Mr. Singal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-NHAI submits that the learned Arbitrator misdirected himself
and acted against the Public Policy of India on various grounds as stated
hereinunder:-
a) The land was recorded as ‘ gair mumkin’ by the learned Arbitrator
whereas the land was ‘ agricultural’ in nature.
b) Land even though recorded as ‘a gricultural’ in the ‘ Jamabandi’ w as
erroneously held to have residential potential and considered to be
residential land, and the enhanced compensation was arbitrarily determined
on such assumptions.
c) Under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to ‘the 2013 Act’) argued potentiality of the land
could not be considered to be a factor under the said Act. Parameters laid
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 8 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
down in Section 26 of the 2013 Act were to be construed strictly for the
purpose of determining the enhanced market value of the acquired land,
payable to the land loser.
d) The learned Arbitrator failed to take into consideration the sale deeds
produced by the appellant-NHAI for determining the market value.
e) The appellant-NHAI was deprived of its valuable right of cross-
examination as the learned Arbitrator kept pending the application for
cross-examination of the land losers and failed to decide the same.
f) The learned Arbitrator arbitrarily enhanced the market value of the
land in question without taking into consideration the application that was
filed for cross-examination of the land losers. The site plan produced by the
land losers could not have been taken into consideration to come to the
finding that the land in question had residential potential as the said plan
had no authenticity and the land losers were not allowed to be cross-
examined.
g) Under Section 26(1)(c) of the 2013 Act only when the acquisition of
the land was made for private companies or public-private partnership
companies then the average sale price of similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or in the vicinity could be considered. Since the land in the
present case was not acquired for private companies, price of land in
nearby villages could not be considered.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-land losers submits that the site plan in question was a public
document that was issued by the Department of Town and Country
Planning, Punjab. It was not a document that was fabricated/manufactured
by the land losers. Therefore, being a public document, that was
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 9 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
downloaded from the Department’s website no useful purpose would have
been served by cross-examination of landlosers with regard to the existence,
validity and authenticity of the said plan. Moreover, it is submitted that it
was necessary by the learned Arbitrator to take into account the potentiality
of the land when suitable sale deeds are not available for determination of
the market value. At best, the Collector-CALA could have been restricted in
its finding to the strict parameters under Section 26 of the 2013 Act but the
learned Arbitrator was not bound by it. The learned Arbitrator had correctly
taken into account the potential value of the land after recognising the fact
that the 2013 Act is a beneficial legislation and could not have been
restricted to a strict interpretation to the prejudice of the landowners.
Furthermore, it has been submitted that where the sale deeds are not
available for the preceding three years or do not actually reflect the genuine
market value of the land, some amount of guess estimation has to be done
by the Court concerned/learned Arbitrator to determine the correct market
value of the land to ensure just compensation is paid to land losers. Several
precedents have been cited by both the sides which will be dealt with at a
later stage of discussion, in this judgment.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
7. The land in question is situated in Village Malakpur, Tehsil
Ludhiana and District Ludhiana. Notification under Section 3-A of the
National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1956 Act’)
was issued on September 18, 2015. Notification under Section 3-D of the
1956 Act was issued on May 12, 2016. Award was passed by CALA on
April 26, 2017. The learned Arbitrator’s award is dated January 13, 2021
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 10 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
and the judgment by which the learned ADJ rejected the application under
Section 34 of the 1996 Act is dated March 1, 2023.
8. The learned Arbitrator held that from the ‘ Jamabandis ’ for the
year 2011-12 placed on record by the land losers, it appears that the land
was described as ‘ gair mumkin’ i.e. non-irrigated land. The existence of
such document was not denied or contradicted by the learned counsel for
the NHAI. Nothing could be brought on record to show that the
‘ Jamabandis’ produced by the land losers were not genuine documents or
had no evidentiary value.
9. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator came to the finding that the
‘ Jambandis’ were not minutely perused by the Collector prior to issuance of
the Notification under Section 3-A of the 1956 Act. Without looking into
the ‘ Jamabandis’ , the Collector being the competent authority passed the
award considering the land to be ‘ agricultural ’ in nature thereby paying less
compensation than that the land losers were entitled to. He held that the
Collector did not even bother to visit the land in question. Had he done so,
he could have easily corrected his mistake.
10. To resolve the controversy in question, the learned Arbitrator
perused the site plan produced by the land losers which was issued by the
Town and Country Planning Department, Punjab. From the site plan, it
appeared to him that there were vacant plots and residential colonies near
the acquired land and the said ‘ gair mumkin’ land was one that was fastly
developing for commercial, residential and industrial purposes.
11. The learned Arbitrator did not find much substance in the
arguments on behalf of the NHAI that there would be restriction on
construction on both sides of the scheduled roads as no such scheduled road
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 11 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
was in existence as on the date of the award or marked in the master plan
that was before him.
12. Next he went on to assess the market value of the acquired
land keeping in mind the provisions of Section 26 of the 2013 Act by
referring to 12 sale deeds produced by the NHAI and held that the same
only were in relation to ‘ agricultural’ land and did not relate to ‘gair
mumkin’ land. Therefore, he held that the said deeds had no manner of
application to the acquired land in question. The learned Arbitrator also
discarded the sale deeds produced by the land losers-respondents since they
were of a period which was beyond the period of three years from the date
of publication of Notification under Section 3-A of the 1956 Act. Moreover,
the said sale deeds were qua the land that was ‘ agricultural’ in nature and
therefore they were not relied upon by the learned Arbitrator.
13. After considering the provisions of Section 26 of the 2013 Act
and coming to the finding that the learned Arbitrator could not confine
himself to a strict interpretation of the said Section and also considering the
average sale price of 50% of the deeds that were before the Tehsildar to be
Rs.3,557.63 per sq. yds equivalent to Rs.4,255.37 per sq. mtr as opposed to
the Collector rate of Rs.2,900 per sq. yds., the learned Arbitrator awarded a
sum of Rs.4,255.37 per sq. meter for ‘ gair mumkin’ and non-irrigated land.
14. The provisions of Section 26 of the 2013 Act is reproduced
hereinafter:-
Section 26- Determination of market value of land by
Collector-- (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
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 12 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(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 11.
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) xxx xxx xxx
(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
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
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 13 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
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 institutions of their choice.”
15. In cases where ‘ agricultural ’ land as recorded in the
‘ Jamabandis’ for the year 2011-12, the learned Arbitrator took into account
the location and proximity of the land acquired, to the location of the ‘ gair
mumkin’ land in the revenue record and observed that the correctness of the
entries made in the revenue record with regard to the nature of the said land,
was also not free from doubt. Moreover, in the present case, the Collector
did not comply with the requirements of the third proviso to Section 26(3)
of the 2013 Act. Therefore, even on that score, it was held that the Collector
rates did not reflect the correct market value of the land in question. The
finding of the learned Arbitrator on the evidential aspect is held to be
sacrosanct as he is the ultimate master of quality and quantity of evidence
before him.
16. The learned Arbitrator held that when the land is situated close
to the highway and adjacent to residential/’ gair mumkin’ land, for the
acquisition of the said land, rate for ‘ agricultural’ land could not be
granted. The immense potentiality of the land had to be taken into
consideration for determining the market value of the land. The land
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 14 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
situated in the adjoining village of Jainpur where the State Government was
building streets, parks etc. had to be taken into consideration. The value of
the land in nearby village Ayyali was also taken into consideration for
determining the market value.
17. The learned Arbitrator took into the account the fact that there
were residential colonies near the acquired land in question and certain
renowned schools and posh residential colony like South City were also
situated nearby. Therefore, the market value of the land could not be
determined only on the basis of the Collector rate for such ‘ agricultural’
land. It has also been observed that the potentiality of the land in question
could not be controverted by the counsel for the NHAI. He held that the
land in question was almost similarly situated with the neighbouring land
on which posh residential colonies like South City, a renowned school etc.
were situated. Factually the said findings were not controverted by the
learned counsel for NHAI.
18. Accordingly, for the ‘ agricultural’ land, the learned Arbitrator
rd
enhanced the market value to Rs.2836.92/- per sq. meter after making 1/3
deduction in the ‘ gair mumkin’ rate i.e. Rs.4255.37 per sq. meter, awarded
by the Collector. For the ‘ gair mumkin’ land compensation @ Rs.4255.37
was awarded by the learned Arbitrator as was done by the Collector. The
learned ADJ refused to interfere with the award passed by the learned
Arbitrator by holding that re-appreciation of evidence was not permissible
under Section 34 of the 1996 Act unless there was patent illegality apparent
on the face of the award.
19. On the issue whether the learned Arbitrator could travel
beyond the scope of Section 26 of the 2013 Act, Mr. Singal relies on a
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 15 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7847 of 2026 decided
on May 12, 2026 ‘ Project Director, National Highways Authority of India
Vs. Alfa Remidis Ltd. and Ors.’ reported in 2026 INSC 480 . He submits
that the learned Arbitrator could not have travelled beyond the provisions of
Section 26 of the 2013 Act.
20. In the case of Alfa Remidis Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court held
that the learned Arbitrator erred in relying on a single sale deed dated
March 29, 2017 relating to ‘ residential’ land in an adjoining village for
determination of the market value of the land that was used for ‘ industrial’
purposes. Therefore, it held that the two lands were not similar in nature
and the price of one sale deed could not be relied upon for determination of
the market value. The methodology for working out the average sale price
under Section 26 (1) (b) and the various explanations thereunder had to be
followed.
21. It is not in dispute that a report was called from the Tehsildar
whereby the average value of the sale deeds for ‘ gair mumkin’ land was
provided by the Tehsildar. Relying upon the said report, the Collector
arrived at the rate to be awarded as market value for the ‘ gair mumkin’ land.
Therefore, the facts in Alfa Remidis Ltd. (supra) is completely
distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Since deeds for ‘ gair
mumkin’ land reflecting the correct market value according to NHAI, were
not produced by NHAI, the learned Arbitrator relied on the Tehsildar’s
rd
report and reduced 1/3 from the value of the ‘ gair mumkin’ land to arrive
at the market value of the ‘ agricultural’ land, having residential potential.
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 16 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
22. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on a judgment of a
Coordinate Bench dated May 12, 2026 in RFA No.1182 of 2024 ‘ Jaharvir
Goga Samiti Vs. State of Haryana and another’ ..
23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court clearly held that the 2013
Act was a welfare legislation and was only an improved version of the 1894
Act meant to provide more benefits while ensuring a robust mechanism for
awarding just and fair compensation to the land losers.
24. In the said judgment, the difference between the powers of a
Collector under Section 26 of the 2013 Act vis-a-vis the powers of Courts
was discussed and it was held that binding the Arbitrator/authority or the
Court strictly to the averaging methodology under Section 26(1) would
invariably result in determination of a market value that falls below
prevailing rate.
25. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in ‘ Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Vs. Vincent
Daniel and Ors.’ reported in 2025 (7) SCC 798 to come to a finding that
the Courts cannot be bound by the strict interpretation of computation as
laid down in Section 26 of the 2013 Act. The said section can only serve as
a guiding factor for the authority or Court in determination of a market
value and could not be elevated to the status of a provision which was
binding in nature.
26. He also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in ‘ Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority’ , (2015)3 SCC 49
to submit that the scope of interference in an application under Section 34
and 37 of the 1996 Act is extremely limited.
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 17 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
27. This Court finds no reason to differ from the judgment passed
by the Coordinate Bench in Jaharvir Goga Samiti’s case (supra) and
holds that strictly relying on the parameters laid under Section 26 of the
2013 Act when relevant suitable sale deeds are not available, will cause
immense injustice to the land losers if they are paid at the collector rate as
the existing market value can never be computated in such an eventuality.
28. With regard to the contention of no evidence being available
before the learned Arbitrator, this Court cannot accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant-NHAI as the site plan of the Department
of Town and Country Planning, Punjab was available before the learned
Arbitrator. There was no denial of the factum that the said plan was a
genuine document. The contention that the said plan was of 2017 and not
prior to 2015 cannot also be accepted when a similar map of 2013 reveals
the same layout, nature of the land and density. The village in question falls
under residential area (low density) which includes village ‘ Abadi’ land , as
per the said site plan. Relying on the same, the learned arbitrator held that
for the land in question, the land owner should not be awarded
compensation only on market rate for ‘ agricultural’ land. The potential of
the land as residential (‘ Abadi’) was to be taken into consideration for
awarding the enhanced market value.
29. This Court is of the view that no perversity or arbitrariness has
been committed by the learned Arbitrator by relying on such evidence. This
cannot be said to be a case where no evidence at all was relied upon by the
learned Arbitrator to come to the conclusion that the market value of the
‘ agricultural’ given its residential potential needed to be enhanced.
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 18 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
30. Learned counsel for the land owners has also placed reliance
on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘ New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority Vs. Harnand Singh’ reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 1691 . The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinafter:-
“31. Guesstimation is a heuristic device that
enables the court, in the absence of direct evidence and
relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed
guess or estimation of the market value of the land under
acquisition, and concomitantly the compensation payable by
the appropriate Government. In that sense, guesstimation
hinges on the Court's ability to exercise informed judgement
and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially
when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer.
32. This principle accentuates the fundamental
understanding that determining compensation for land is not a
matter of exact science but involves a significant element of
estimation. Indeed, this holds true for valuation of land in
general, which is affected by a multitude of factors such as its
location, surrounding market conditions, feasible uses etc.
Accordingly, while evidence and calculations can aid in
estimating the land value, they ultimately serve as tools for
approximation rather than precision. Instead, land valuation-
and consequently the affixation of compensation- remains an
exercise of informed estimation, requiring the integration of
diverse data points and professional judgment concerning
subjective, intangible and dynamic elements. Pursing a single
precise valuation or compensation figure is bound to be unjust,
representing a rigid approach and a procrustean endeavour at
best.”
31. Relying on the broad principles of said judgment, this Court is
of the view that it is not only a mathematical computation that has to be
done by the learned Arbitrator while determining the market value but also
some amount of guesstimation has to be done where the appropriate sale
deeds are not available for the purpose of determination of the market value
of the land.
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 19 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
32. Pursuing a single precise valuation of compensation would be
unjust for determining the market value as several intangible and dynamic
elements would also have to be taken into consideration.
33. With regard to the issue of learned Arbitrator rejecting the
prayer of appellant-NHAI for cross-examination of the land owners, this
Court is of the view that since the award has been passed way back in 2021
and the bypass has already been constructed, no fruitful purpose would be
served now by setting aside the judgment of the learned ADJ and also the
award of the learned Arbitrator on that score when, after considering all the
pleadings and available documents, the learned Arbitrator enhanced the
market value of the land in question. This view is taken as reliance is placed
by the learned Arbitrator on a public document (site plan of the Town and
Country Planning Department) to form the opinion that the land was ‘ gair
mumkin Abadi’.
34. The learned Arbitrator awarded severance compensation @
30% of the market value of the acquired land in case the land of the land
losers were bifurcated in two taks due to the acquisition and the maximum
land that was left unacquired was less than 2 acres. The said fact was
required to be verified by the Collector and only upon such verification,
severance compensation was liable to be paid to the land losers. Further
more, 100% solatium on the market value along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of award or dispossession, whichever was earlier, till
the date of actual deposit thereof was awarded by the learned Arbitrator.
There is no perversity in the aforesaid findings.
35. Accordingly, the instant appeals being FAO-4994-2023, FAO-
147-2024, FAO-4993-2023, FAO-4997-2023, FAO-5008-2023, FAO-5068-
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 20 of 21
FAO-4994-2023 (O&M) and connected matters
2023, FAO-5069-2023, FAO-5071-2023, FAO-5073-2023, FAO-5473-
2023, FAO-5475-2023, FAO-5476-2023, FAO-5477-2023, FAO-5717-
2023, FAO-5718-2023, FAO-5726-2023, FAO-5722-2023, FAO-5724-
2023, FAO-5727-2023, FAO-6047-2023, FAO-170-2024, FAO-5997-2023,
FAO-6048-2023, FAO-6049-2023, FAO-6052-2023, FAO-6053-2023,
FAO-6054-2023, FAO-6062-2023, FAO-6657-2023, FAO-6745-2023,
FAO-5007-2023, FAO-5721-2023, FAO-5749-2023, FAO-5754-2023 and
FAO-1619-2025 are dismissed.
36. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
November 05, 2026
Vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VANDANA
2026.11.05 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 21 of 21