IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17022 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Bhag Singh and another …Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF THE ACTING CHIEF THE ACTING CHIEF THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.7.2011 (P-5), passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (respondent No. 1), under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the 1956 Act’). The aforesaid order has been by way of footnote on the application filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts in brief are that the land of the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the 1956 Act which led to the announcement of award on 11.2.2011 (P-2). Petitioner No. 1 moved an application dated 11.3.2011 pointing out that while fixing CWP No. 17022 of 2011 2 the rate per marla, a clerical mistake has crept in, inasmuch as, instead of mentioning the piece of land up to the depth of 25 meters, it has been recorded as 25feets. On 7.7.2011, the aforesaid application has been rejected by passing a single line order on the foot of the application that “No action is required. File it.” Thus, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The other prayer made by the petitioners is that solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has not been paid, as has been done in the case of Daljit Rai v. Union of India and others (Case No. MA-660/08, decided on 12.5.2011, Annexure P-3). However, no such claim has been made by the petitioners in the application dated 11.3.2011, the way claim has been made by said Daljit Rai by filing an additional application. 4. In response to the notice of motion, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has stated that under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘the Arbitration Act’), a typographical error or any other error of similar nature occurring in the award, could be corrected by the Arbitrator on an application filed by an aggrieved party. Accordingly, the learned counsel has suggested that since the application has been filed by the petitioner on 11.3.2011, which is within one month of the passing of the award, the correction to that effect can be effected by the Arbitrator. The aforesaid stand has been supported by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through their counsel Mr. Rishi Kaushal. 5. In view of the above, the order dated 7.7.2011 passed on the foot of the application stating that “No action is required. File CWP No. 17022 of 2011 3 it”, is hereby set aside. We direct the Arbitrator-cum- Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (respondent No. 1) to decide the application filed by petitioner No. 1 on 11.3.2011 in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Arbitration Act and if he finds any typographical/clerical mistake in the award or any other mistake falling within the parameters of Section 33-G, the same be rectified. The needful shall be done expeditiously preferably within a period of one month. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (respondent No. 1) on 29.9.2011. 6. In respect of the second prayer it is suffice to observe that if the petitioners are so advised, they may avail the remedy of filing an additional application the way Daljit Rai has filed the application. If such an application is filed within 15 days then the matter be decided in accordance with law by the Arbitrator-cum- Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (respondent No. 1) within a month thereafter. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Jus Acting Chief Jus Acting Chief Jus Acting Chief Justice tice tice tice (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) September 19 September 19 September 19 September 19, 2010 , 2010 , 2010 , 2010 Judge Judge Judge Judge Pkapoor