NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. RAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein assails order dtd. 25/1/2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the objections filed by the petitioner to execution petition have been dismissed.

(2.) A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that the land belonging to respondents No.1 to 7 as well as some other land owners had been acquired by the petitioner - National Highways Authority of India for widening National Highway No.152 (Kaithal - Narwana Sec. ). The competent authority passed its award on 17/3/2015. While some of the landowners filed application under Sec. 3G(5) of National Highway Act, 1956 and invoked arbitration for enhancement of the award, respondents No.1 to 7 had not moved any such application under Sec. 3G(5) of National Highway Act, 1956. The Arbitrator-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, while disposing of the matter in respect of the other landowners, passed his award dtd. 24/5/2019 (Annexure P-2), wherein the market value of the land was not enhanced but the solatium as had been granted by Competent Authority, Land Acquisition @30% was enhanced to 100% in terms of letter No.11011/30/2015-LA dtd. 29/4/2015. The said other landowners were accordingly paid the enhanced solatium. It was thereafter that respondents No.1 to 7 moved an execution petition before the District Judge, Kaithal for enforcement of award dtd. 24/5/2019 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal in respect of the other landowners. The petitioner - NHAI filed objections against the execution petition mainly on the ground that the execution was not maintainable as they were not party before the Arbitrator-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and had never challenged the compensation as awarded by Competent Authority, Land Acquisition. The Executing Court considered the submissions and while placing reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and another Versus Tarsem Singh and others, 2019 (9) SCC 304, dismissed the objection petition.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the impugned order 25/1/2023 (Annexure P-5) cannot sustain inasmuch as there was no award of the Arbitrator in favour of the private respondents, who had never ever approached the arbitrator seeking any kind of enhancement and that the award passed in favour of some other landowners cannot be executed on the same terms in respect of the landowners, who had never chosen to approach the Arbitrator seeking any kind of enhancement.