Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17468 (PNJ)

GURMAIL SINGH @ GURMEL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CR/2669/2026 · 2026-03-25

Harkesh Manuja

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURMAIL SINGH @ GURMEL SINGH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, HARKESH MANUJA The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure P learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar the petitioner was directed to furnish indemnity bonds for release of payment of compensation amount in lieu of 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitione petitioner-landowner the concerned Reference Court. Although, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were filed by NHAI, however, the said objections stand dismissed and the matter has already become final between the parties. Even if no stay order cannot be any own money by the petitioner 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of Court. Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 whereas, Ahmed, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents 5. Learned counsel for respondent N counsel for respondent No. filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, have been dismissed and the matter has already parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: GURMAIL SINGH @ GURMEL SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure P Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar-cum the petitioner was directed to furnish indemnity bonds for release of payment of compensation amount in lieu of his It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitione landowner has been granted compensation as determined by the concerned Reference Court. Although, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were filed by NHAI, however, the said objections stand dismissed and the matter has already become final between the parties. Even if any appeal is filed by the respondents, no stay order has been produced before the Court. Therefore, there cannot be any direction for furnishing indemnity bonds for receiving own money by the petitioner-landowner. Notice of motion. On the asking of Court. Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 whereas, AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents Learned counsel for respondent N counsel for respondent No.3 have not even disputed that the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, have been dismissed and the matter has already attained finality IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2669-2026 Date of Decision: March 25, 2026 ........Petitioner ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), passed by the cum-Executing Court, whereby the petitioner was directed to furnish indemnity bonds for release of his acquired land. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the been granted compensation as determined by the concerned Reference Court. Although, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were filed by NHAI, however, the said objections stand dismissed and the matter has already become appeal is filed by the respondents, produced before the Court. Therefore, there furnishing indemnity bonds for receiving his On the asking of Court. Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 whereas, Mr. Athar AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 and learned have not even disputed that the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, have been attained finality between the 2026 March 25, 2026 Petitioner The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside 6), passed by the Executing Court, whereby the petitioner was directed to furnish indemnity bonds for release of that the been granted compensation as determined by the concerned Reference Court. Although, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were filed by NHAI, however, the said objections stand dismissed and the matter has already become appeal is filed by the respondents, produced before the Court. Therefore, there his On the asking of Court. Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate Mr. Athar learned have not even disputed that the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, have been between the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.30 19:01 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-2669-2026 -2- 6. Accordingly, this Court finds the condition imposed by the Executing Court qua furnishing the indemnity bonds by the petitioner- landowner to be totally unjustified. Otherwise also, in the matter of release of amount of compensation for acquisition of land, it deserves to be noted that it is a statutory entitlement of the land owner. Therefore, unless there is any specific direction or order from the Appellate Court, the Executing Court is not authorized to insist upon any guarantee, surety, security or bonds of any kind for releasing the amount to the entitled land owner. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the Executing Court for furnishing of indemnity bonds by the petitioner for release of compensation; is quashed. The petitioner-landowner be paid the amount as directed by the Executing Court, if already not paid. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.30 19:01 I agree to specified portions of this document