2026:HHC:7370 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Appeal No. 548/2025 Reserved on: 09.03.2026 Decided on: 16.03.2026 Balwant & ors. …..Appellants Versus National Highway Authority of India & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Romesh Verma, Judge The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6.6.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Arbitration Petition No. 987/2024, whereby the objections preferred by the respondent/NHAI against the Award dated 6.3.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Arbitrator under National Highways 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act”) have been partly allowed and the award passed by the Arbitrator has been partly set aside. 2 Facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Central Government issued notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, which was published in the official gazette on 21.04.2012 and 17.08.2012 for acquiring the land of the land owners for building, widening, four-laning etc. maintenance, management and operation of NH-21 from KM126.500 to KM 188.917 (Bilaspur-Nerchowk Section) in respect of revenue estate Dayholi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. After issuing notifications under Section 3D (1) and 3G (3) of the Act, the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA), vide Award No. 40, dated 17.10.2013 assessed market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.12 lacs per bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective of classification and nature of the land. 3 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the appellants/landowners filed claim petition under Section 3G (5) of the Act before the notified Arbitrator i.e. Divisional Commissioner Mandi, who vide order dated 06.03.2024 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 26,35,000/- per bigha. The appellants were also held entitled to all the statutory benefits granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. 3 Tarsem Singh, AIR 2019 SC 4689 on the compensation amount. 4 The aforesaid award dated 06.03.2024 came to be challenged by National Highway Authority of India, respondent No.1 herein, by filing application (Arbitration Petition No. 987/2024) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned District Judge Mandi, who vide judgment dated 6.6.2025 partly allowed the aforesaid application and held the appellants/landowners to be entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the judgment in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra), however rejected the benefit as has been granted by the CALA under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in favour of the appellants for additional market value. 5 Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for additional market value, the appellants have filed the instant appeal praying therein to quash and set aside the judgment dated 6.6.2025, as passed by the learned District Judge and to restore the award dated 06.03.2024, as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, as a whole. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 4 7 As regards respondent No.1-NHAI, it has not yet challenged the judgment dated 6.6.2025, as passed by the learned District Judge, whereby its appeal was partly allowed, however, as regards the landowners/appellants, they have laid challenge to the judgment dated 6.6.2025 submitting herein that they are not aggrieved with the judgment dated 6.6.2025 as a whole, however they are dissatisfied with the findings as rendered with regard to relief of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act, which according to them, has illegally been rejected by the learned District Judge. 8 The controversy at hand is no longer res integra in view of orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2572/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 7086/2019, titled as National Highway Authority of India &Anr. Vs. Tehal Singh & Ors. decided on 30.07.2021 as also in Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019 in Union of India &Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., decided on 04.02.2025, wherein one of the issues, as has been raised in the instant appeal, qua relief of additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act, has been answered against the landowner(s). 5 9 It would be pertinent to mention here that similar issue came up before this Court in bunch of appeals, lead being Arb. Appeal No.135/2024, titled as National Highway Authority of India vs. Kamla Devi, decided on 08.10.2025, wherein in para 4(v) of the judgment, it has been observed as under:- “4(v) Award of interest @12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act by the learned District Judge. There is considerable force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents-land owners were not entitled to the award of 12% interest per annum on the enhanced market value of the land from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A till the date of award by the competent authority or till the date of taking possession of land, whichever was earlier. The land owners had already been awarded 30% solatium on the compensation amount of the acquired land, along with 9% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession of the land till actual deposit, under the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh & Ors. had declared Section 3J of the NH Act as unconstitutional. It was further held that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to the assessment of solatium and interest as contained 6 in Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) as well as the interest payable in terms of proviso to Section 28 of the NH Act, would ipso facto apply to the acquisition made under NH Act. However, subsequently, the appellant- NHAI sought a clarification in Tehal Singh & Ors. on the ground that benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act had not been claimed before any authority or the Court in the facts of those cases. The said plea of appellant was accepted and vide order dated 30.07.2021, the decision in Tehal Singh & Ors.was modified by deleting the expression ‘(1-A)’. It would also be pertinent to notice that the aforesaid decision dated 30.07.2021 was followed by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Highway Authority of India Vs. Resham Singh, wherein it was held that all land owners, whose lands were acquired by invoking the provisions of the NH Act were though entitled to solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,but not to the additional market value contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. While deciding miscellaneous application in Tarsem Singh & Ors., the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed Raj Kumar &Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. .Raj Kumar had arisen from a decision rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that was based upon Resham Singh case, whereby landowners’ claim for award of Additional market value was declined. Hon’ble Apex Court held that the challenge 7 therein pertained to the High Court’s refusal to grant additional market value as another component of the compensation, even though solatium and interest had already been awarded. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: - “3. Additionally, SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 titled ‘Raj Kumar and another v. Union of India and others’, has been preferred by a private party whose lands were acquired by NHAI. In this instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected their claim for the award of ‘Additional Market Value’ relying upon its decision in National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh29whereby the landowners were held entitled to ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’, but their claim for the grant of ‘Additional Market Value’ was declined. These benefits were granted / partly declined in terms of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), which were read into the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHAI Act). 25. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the Applicant, NHAI. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (supra) regarding the beneficial nature of granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application. 26. Leave is granted in the other connected matters, and all the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to calculate the amount of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh (supra). In this 8 context, the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 is dismissed, as the challenge therein pertains to the High Court’s refusal to award Additional Market Value as another component of the compensation, while ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ have already been granted.” In view of above, landowners were not entitled to market value under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 10 In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the appellants/landowners are not entitled to market value under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) 16.03.2026 Judge (pankaj)