IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6264 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.1.2009 Neena Gupta and others. -----Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. H.S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction for payment of compensation to the petitioners in terms of award dated 29.5.2007, Annexure P-5. 2. Case of the petitioners is that their land has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). Notification under Section 3A of the Act was issued on 4.10.2006 and final notification for acquiring the land under Section 3D of the Act was issued on 12.5.2007. C.W.P. No.6264 of 2008 Compensation was determined by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act vide award Annexure P-5 dated 29.5.2007. Possession of the land of the petitioners was taken without deposit of compensation, as mandatorily required under Section 3H of the Act and the land was duly utilized. Instead of paying compensation which was determined, decision dated 25.10.2007 was taken by ‘Rate Fixation Committee”, re-determining the compensation at Rs.22 lacs per acre instead of Rs.12,000/- per square meter determined by the competent authority. 3. In the reply filed, the stand of the respondents is that the competent authority ignored the collectorate rate laid down, meaning thereby that the award could not be enforced. Instructions of the State of Haryana fixing the floor rate have been filed as Annexures R-1 and R-2. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that determination of compensation by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act is final and binding and only procedure to challenge the same is as laid down under Section 3G(5) of the Act. If the compensation is not acceptable to either of the parties, an arbitrator has to be appointed by the Central Government on application of either party, who shall proceed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The rate determined by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act having not been challenged in 2 C.W.P. No.6264 of 2008 the manner prescribed, the amount was liable to be deposited and paid as per statutory procedure under Section 3H of the Act. 6. The above legal position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the decision dated 30.10.2007 Annexure P-8 and direct respondent No.2 to comply with its legal obligations in terms of statutory provisions of the Act within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 28, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3