Disposed¶22

Anju Aggarwal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025CWP/20061/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound disposal of long-pending land acquisition arbitration; CWP-20061-2024; Anju Aggarwal; State of Haryana; NHAI; Project Director (NH-2); Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2015; Award dated 05.09.2013; solatium and interest on compensation; M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. UOI and Ors. 2011(4) RCR(Civil), 375; Articles 226/227; mandamus; 10-year delay in statutory arbitration; 6-month deadline; litigation expenses Rs.50,000/- per month; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Justice Harkesh Manuja; decision date September 09, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to ensure final adjudication of Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2015 within 6 months; in default, litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- per month for the delayed period payable by the office of respondent No.2. ¶22

Anju Aggarwal and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed to expedite and dispose of the statutory arbitration proceedings (Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2015), pending for almost 10 years, within a reasonable time. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 is directed to ensure final adjudication of Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2015 ('Smt. Anju Aggarwal Vs. Project Director (NH-2), National Highways Authority of India and Anr.') within 6 months.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

If respondent No.2 fails to decide the arbitration petition within 6 months, the petitioners shall be entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- per month for the delayed period, to be paid by the office of respondent No.2.

¶21

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to justify the delay of 10 years in disposal of the arbitration reference.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja J., oral) disposed of CWP-20061-2024 (Anju Aggarwal and another v. State of Haryana and others), a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking summoning of the record of the Award dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 and a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider grant of solatium and interest on compensation in view of M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. UOI and Ors., 2011(4) RCR(Civil), 375. Observing that the statutory arbitration reference (Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2015) had been pending for almost 10 years and that the respondents' counsel could not justify the delay, the Court directed respondent No.2 to ensure final adjudication within 6 months, failing which the petitioners were awarded litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- per month for the delayed period, payable by the office of respondent No.2.

¶1

344

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-20061-2024 Date of Decision: September 09, 2025

¶4

ANJU AGGARWAL AND ANOTHER ........Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶8

Present: M r. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate f o r the petitioners.

¶9

M r. Jagidsh Manchanda, Addl. A.G. Haryana for responden t Nos.1 to 3.

¶10

M r. Neeraj S. Bhardwaj, Advo c ate for respondent No.4. ****

¶11

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

B y way of present writ petition f iled under Articles 226/227 o f Constitution o f India, prayer has been m a de for issuance of a writ t o summon record of Award dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed b y respondent N o .3 (wrongly mentioned as N o.4) and a writ in the natur e of mandamu s directing respondent No. 2 to consider the grant o f solatium and interest on the amount of c o mpensation from the date o f notification till its realization in view of judgment passed by this Court i n “ M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. UOI and Ors.” reported a s 2011(4) RCR(Civil), 375.

¶13

L e arned counsel for the petitioners contends that th e arbitration p r oceedings initiated at th e instance of petitioners - landowners a g ainst the award dated 05.0 9 .2013 passed by responden t No.3 are pe n ding consideration before r e spondent No.2 in statutor y arbitration pr o ceedings for the past almost 10 years and thus, they pra y for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to expedite th e proceedings a nd dispose of the same withi n reasonable time.

¶14

O n the other hand, learned co u nsel for respondents has no t been able to j ustify the delay of 10 years in disposal of the arbitratio n reference.

¶15

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-20061-2024

-2-

Notice of motion.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶20

Considering the innocuous prayer made in the present writ petition, respondent No.2 is directed to ensure the final adjudication of Arbitration Petition bearing No.117 of 2015 titled as “Smt. Anju Aggarwal Vs. Project Director (NH-2), National Highways Authority of India and Anr.” within 6 months from today.

¶21

In case respondent No.2 fails to abide by the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioners shall be entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- per month for the delayed period to be paid by the office of respondent No.2.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

¶23

09.09.2025

¶24

Tejwinder

¶25

(HARK Whether speaking/reasoned	ESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶26

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 23:15 I agree to specified portions of this document

Anju Aggarwal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Aggarwal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal Vs Ram Rakha Singh

Yashpal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Yashpal and Others

Mal Singh Vs Lac etc.

Mal Singh Vs the Land Acquisition Collector and Another

Naveeen Rana and Another Vs Dharambir and Others