Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals allowed

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BALWANT SINGH & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-6982 of 2019; 6983-6984 of 2019
Neutral Citation:[2019] 12 S.C.R. 78

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • R. F. Nariman
  • Surya Kant
Judgment Date
2019-09-03
Court Decision / Holding
Appeals allowed. Impugned judgments set aside. The cases are remanded to the Punjab & Haryana High Court to decide under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by an appropriate bench for expeditious hearing.
Final Disposition
Appeals allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Union of India
  • ANR

Respondents

  • Balwant Singh
  • Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mukul Rohatgi
  • • Ankit Gyan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Gaurav Agrawal
  • • Neeraj Kumar Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns two Civil Appeals challenging High Court judgments (FAO No. 10168 of 2014 and RA-CR No. 234-CII of H 2016) that followed the Madishetti Bala Ramul rule, applying a Land Acquisition Act approach to a National Highways Act dispute. The Union of India contends that Madishetti Bala Ramul (2007) applies solely to the Land Acquisition Act, whereas the National Highways Act, particularly Section 3G(5), envisions a different mechanism: if the amount determined by the competent authority under the NH Act is not acceptable, it may be referred to arbitration by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Consequently, the impugned judgments are erroneous as they in effect treated NH Act disputes as though they were governed by the LA Act. The Court reiterates that under the LA Act an award is an offer on behalf of the government and not directly challengeable by the government (Section 25), while the NH Act contemplates a process where disputes may be resolved by arbitration under Section 3G(5). In light of this, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matters to be decided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Delays were condoned; a review petition on limited land types did not alter the core issue. The appeals are allowed in terms of remand and directions to constitute an appropriate bench for expeditious hearing.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Under the Land Acquisition Act, an award is an offer on behalf of the government and cannot be challenged by the government (Section 25).
  • NH Act 3G(5) contemplates the amount determined by the competent authority may be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government if not acceptable.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union submits that the judgment below erred by following the Madishetti Bala Ramul line of reasoning, which applies to the Land Acquisition Act and not to the National Highways Act. Section 3G(5) of the NH Act provides a distinct scheme wherein the amount determined by the competent authority can, if not acceptable, be determined by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the LA-based framework cannot govern NH Act disputes. The impugned judgments wrongly remanded under LA principles rather than under NH Act’s arbitration mechanism, and the appropriate remedy lies in remanding the matter for decision under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act (AC Act). The Court should set aside the judgments and permit arbitration as contemplated by the NH Act, while condoning delays and directing expeditious disposal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents did not seriously challenge the central proposition that NH Act operates under a different scheme than the LA Act. They corroborated the need to distinguish the LA framework from NH Act; delays were condoned, and reliance on the Madishetti Bala Ramul principle was not vigorously disputed. They acknowledged that the review petition did not raise new grounds beyond those already addressed. Overall, they supported the position that the NH Act’s arbitration mechanism should govern disputes rather than applying LA Act principles.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through LRs v. The Land Acquisition Officer[2007] 3 RCR (Civil) 455DistinguishedThe decision applied to the Land Acquisition Act only; this judgment is not applicable to the National Highways Act, per the Court’s interpretation of Section 3G(5).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BALWANT SINGH & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS **[2019] 12 S.C.R. 78** [2019] 12 S.C.R. 78 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. 69816982 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, 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, 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. A B 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 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. 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. D E F 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