Laying down an operational procedure for judges in the District judiciary, the Punjab & Haryana High Court asserted that "they are expected to deliver dispassionate and objective judgments and orders fundamentally based on rationality, precision and truth".

Justice Anil Kshetarpal asserted that the presiding judges of courts were not expected to pass orders on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises and Made it clear that law was “essentially a question of logic and deduction”.

While quoting philosopher, writer and composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the context of the judiciary, Justice Kshetarpal observed that superior intelligence, beholding all passions of men without experiencing any of them, was expected from a judicial officer hearing cases and passing judgments.

Justice Kshetarpal further made said that the courts were expected to adopt a balanced approach, which was a sine qua non or an indispensable requirement for adjudicating disputes.

These observations of the High Court came on a batch of 65 revision petitions filed by erstwhile Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Ltd, (HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited), against the state of Punjab and other respondents in a land acquisition matter.

The petitioner had challenged the correctness of orders passed by the “executing court”, while quantifying the total amount payable to the landowners. The petitioners, during the course of the hearing, said the court granted compensation for “command area” under canal irrigation regarding land which was not the subject matter of acquisition. It was added that compensation was also awarded in case of land for which relief had been granted and received.

After hearing the contentions of both sides the court observed that "the counsel representing the petitioner pointed out errors/mistakes in the calculation of the “command area” and the consequential error in the amount payable to the landowners. The counsel representing the respondent filed written arguments. However, the factual averments made by the petitioner’s counsel in the calculation sheets could not be controverted."

Justice Kshetarpal asserted that "it was evident that the “executing court” was swayed by emotions while passing the orders and did not to meticulously analyze the facts of the case as well as the material produced on record by both the parties."

Disposing of the matter, the HC said "the court was of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned orders were set aside while directing the executing court to pass fresh orders while considering all the relevant documents placed before it after granting an opportunity to both the parties to furnish further evidence."