Disposed

Avtar Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2013CWP/12551/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding land acquisition. Without expressing an opinion on merits, it directed petitioners to file a representation for solatium and interest. The court ordered the respondent to decide the representation within three months after hearing, and release any payment within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file representation; direction to respondent to decide after hearing within three months and release payment within one month.

Avtar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.12551 of 2013 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: May 31, 2013

¶5

(i) CWP No.12551 of 2013 (O & M)

¶6

Avtar Singh and another

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India and others

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

(ii) CWP No.12697 of 2013 (O & M)

¶12

Rajeshwar Singh and another

¶13

....Petitioners Versus

¶14

Union of India and others

¶15

.... Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶17

Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶18

¶19

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶20

This order shall dispose of two civil writ petitions No.12551 and 12697 of 2013. According to the learned counsel the issues involved in these petitions are identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.12551 of 2013.

¶21

The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to pay solatium and interest to the petitioners on account of acquisition of their land under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').

¶22

Learned counsel further states that since the petitioners have not approached the respondents, therefore, they shall file a representation with the competent authority within a week raising their claim as has been

¶23

::2::

¶24

CWP No.12551 of 2013 (O & M)

¶25

raised in the present petition, to which they are entitled in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Foregings versus Union of India and others, 2011(4)R.C.R. (Civil) 375.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petitions are disposed with a direction that in case, any representation is made by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶27

Needless to say that, in the event, the petitioners are found entitled to release of any payment, the same shall be released to them within a period of next one month.

¶28

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶29

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶30

May 31, 2013 sukhpreet

Avtar Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sirajuddin Ahmad Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Harkesh Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Ram Sarup and Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Ors.

Sirajuddin Ahmad Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Rajeshwar Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.