1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6981-6982 OF 2019 (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10200-10201/2019)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.      Appellant(s)

VERSUS

BALWANT SINGH & ORS.         Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6983-6984 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11117-11118/2019)

J U D G M E N T

   R.F. Nariman, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing

for the Union of India, submits that the impugned judgment

passed in these two cases suffers from an obvious error in

that the judgment of this Court in the case of Madishetti

Bala  Ramul  (D)  through  LRs vs.  The  Land  Acquisition

Officer,  2007  (3)  RCR  (Civil)  455  was  followed,  which

judgment applied only to the Land Acquisition Act and which

cannot be made applicable to the National Highways Act for

the reason that Section 3G (5) contains a scheme entirely

different from and at variance from the scheme contained in

the Land Acquisition Act.

2

3) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel and Mr. Neeraj

Kumar  Jain,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondents  were  not  able  to  seriously  controvert  this

position.  Even though there is a considerable delay in

these matters, we find that it has been condoned by this

Court.  M/s Gaurav Agrawal and Neeraj Kumar Jain also point

out that a review petition was filed which was limited only

to two types of land and the point which Mr. Rohatgi has

argued before us was not urged in the said review petition.

4) Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are

of the view that the arguments based on the review petition

need not detain us further as a Special Leave Petition has

been filed against the judgment dated 03.02.2016 in which

this point has been taken.  Also, Mr. Rohatgi is right in

pointing out that under the Land Acquisition Act an award

that is made by the Land Acquisition Officer is in the

nature of an offer on behalf of the government and hence

cannot be challenged by the government - See Section 25 of

the Act.  The scheme of the National Highways Act, on the

other hand, as disclosed by Section 3G (5) is that the

amount determined by the competent authority under the said

Act may, on application of either of the parties, if it is

not so acceptable, be then determined by the Arbitrator to

be appointed by the central government.

3

5) In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the

impugned judgments in these two matters are incorrect and

are  therefore  set  aside.   We  remand  these  cases  to  be

decided  under  the  Section  37  jurisdiction  under  the

Arbitration Act by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.  The

appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.   

6) We are informed that there are a large number of

cases  dependent  on  this  judgment.   The  Learned  Chief

Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is requested to

constitute an appropriate bench to hear these matters at

the earliest.  

   .......................... J.     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

   .......................... J.          (SURYA KANT)

New Delhi; September 03, 2019.