Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusBALWANT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2019 INSC 996
Decided: 3 September 2019
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: R F NARIMAN

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the scheme of the National Highways Act under Section 3G(5) is distinct from the Land Acquisition Act, so the Madishetti Bala Ramul precedent does not apply, and the dispute must be resolved by arbitration under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against judgments that applied the Madishetti Bala Ramul decision, which interprets the Land Acquisition Act, to disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Supreme Court examined whether the award under the Land Acquisition Act, deemed a government offer under Section 25, could be challenged, and whether the scheme of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act—allowing arbitration of compensation disputes—mirrored the Land Acquisition Act. It held that the two statutes have distinct mechanisms; the Land Acquisition Act principles cannot be extended to the National Highways Act. Consequently, the earlier judgments were set aside and the matters remanded to the Punjab & Haryana High Court to be decided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the precedent set in Madishetti Bala Ramul (Land Acquisition Act) is applicable to compensation disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Whether an award under the Land Acquisition Act, being an offer on behalf of the government, can be challenged by the government.
Whether the amount determined under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act can be referred to arbitration under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 37
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 25
National Highway Act, 1956s. 3G(5)

Subjects

National Highways ActLand Acquisition ActArbitrationSection 3G(5)Section 25Section 37Compensation awardSupreme Court of IndiaCivil appeal

Judgment

78                      [2019]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    12 S.C.R. 78              [2019] 12 S.C.R.


A                        UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                                       v.
                         BALWANT SINGH & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-6982 of 2019)
B                           SEPTEMBER 03, 2019
               [R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
           National Highway Act, 1956 – s.3G(5) – Land Acquisition
     Act, 1894 – s.25 – Union of India contended that the impugned
     Judgment suffered from an error – It was contended that in the
C    impugned judgment, the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through
     LRs v. The Land Acquisition Officer was followed, which applied
     only to the Land Acquisition Act and cannot be made applicable to
     the National Highways Act – Held: Union of India is right – Under
     the Land Acquisition Act an award that is made by the Land
     Acquisition is in the nature of an offer on behalf of the government
D    and hence cannot be challenged by the government – Whereas, the
     scheme of the National Highways Act as disclosed by s.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 – Thus, matters remanded to be decided
E    u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the High Court –
     In the aforesaid terms, the appeals are allowed.
           Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through LRs v. The Land
           Acquisition Officer [2007] 3 RCR (Civil) 455 –
           referred to.
F                           Case Law Reference
     [2007] 3 RCR (Civil) 455        referred to             Para 2
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-
     6982 of 2019
G          With
           Civil Appeal Nos. 6983-6984 of 2019.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2016 of the High
     Court of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.
     10168 of 2014 and order dated 09.11.2016 in RA-CR N o. 234-CII of
H    2016 (O&M).
                                     78
    UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BALWANT SINGH & ORS.                            79


       Mukul Rohatgi, Narender Hooda, Amit Sibal, Neeraj Kumar Jain,         A
Sr. Advs., Alok Sangwan, Devashish Bharuka, Raghujeet S. Madan,
Damanjit Singh Monga, Ms. Ankur Berry, Sunny Kadiyan, Yashveer
Singh Balhara, Ravi Bharuka, Mayank Sharma, Rajendra Beniwal, Shashi
Pal Laler, R. S. Manhas, Sonit Sinhmar, Ravi Panwar, P. N. Puri,
Ms. Reeta Dewan Puri, Abhishek Puri, Paramjit Rajput, Harish Mahajan,
                                                                             B
Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Parveen Kumar, Vijay Pratap
Singh, Vivekanand Singh, Anirudh Ray, Ms. Shilpa Singh, Gaurav
Agrawal, Yashraj Singh Deora, Shyam Agarwal, Vinay Tripathi, Aishvary
Vikram, Ms. Sonal Mashankar, Surinder Singh, Satbir Singh Rathore,
Arvind Gupta, Manoj Pundir, Navneet Singh, Advs. for the appearing
parties.                                                                     C
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. F. NARIMAN, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the       D
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        E
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.
        3. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel and Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents were not able     F
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.                                                             G
       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
                                                                             H
80                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 12 S.C.R.


A    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
B
     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.
           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.
C    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 &
D    Haryana High Court is requested to constitute an appropriate bench to
     hear these matters at the earliest.


     Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeals allowed.

E




F




G




H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "National Highways Act"Sign in to search