Disposed

Chanan Singh & Ors. v. U.O.I & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2013CWP/24736/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of multiple writ petitions filed against land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court directed the Respondents to consider the claim for solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per precedent within three months and release the amount within one month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to determine the claim for solatium and interest within three months and Respondents No.1 & 2 to release the amount found due within one month thereafter.

Chanan Singh & Ors. Vs U.O.I & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.24736 of 2013 Date of Decision: November 13, 2013

¶4

Chanan Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 24739 of 2013 Ranjit Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 24752 of 2013 Balwinder Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 24753 of 2013 Harsimrat Sahi ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 5. Civil Writ Petition No. 24754 of 2013 Ranjit Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 6. Civil Writ Petition No. 24763 of 2013 Gurpal Singh @ Gopal and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 7. Civil Writ Petition No. 24764 of 2013 Narottam Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN.

¶5

Present : Mr.Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India-respondent No.1. Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.3&4.

¶6

¶7

Kumar Mohinder 2013.11.18 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶8

CWP No.24736 of 2013 & connected cases

¶9

[2]

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On our asking, Mr. Ritesh Kaplish, Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. P.S. Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has handedover two copies each of the petition to learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents.

¶18

3] The petitioners are residents of different villages, namely, Mukerian, Chak Alabaksh, Aima Mangat, Palaki, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and villages Dasuya, Darapur, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Their lands, as per the details given below have been acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’);

¶19

i) CWP No.24736 of 2013: 14 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 8//62, 30, 26 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶20

Kumar Mohinder 2013.11.18 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.24736 of 2013 & con	nected cases [3]
ii) CWP No.24739 of 2013:	6 K. 9 M. comprised in Khasra no. 34//24/2, 37//7/1, 14/1,
	14/1/3, 37//17/1, 37//25/1, 37//16/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
iii) CWP No.24752 of 2013:	7 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 24//7/5/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Aima Mangat, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
iv) CWP No.24753 of 2013:	6 K. 10 M. comprised in Khasra no. 45//4/1, 45//7/1/3 situated within the revenue estate of village Usman Shaheed, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
v) CWP No.24754 of 2013:	10 Marla comprised in Khasra no. 34//24/1/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
vi) CWP No.24763 of 2013:	9 M. comprised in Khasra no. 37//16/2/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
vii) CWP No.24764 of 2013:	7 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 75, 76, 16//5/2, 6/1, 26, 17//2/2,
	10, 11/1, 1/3/3, 2/1/2, 3/1/2, 4/1/2 situated within the
	revenue estate of village
	Darapur, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶22

4] The award was passed in CWP No. 24753 of 2013 and CWP No. 24764 of 2013 on 28.1.2009, in CWP No. 24739 of 2013 on 28.4.2011, in CWP No. 24752 of 2013 on 24.1.2011 and in CWP No. 24763 of 2013 on 16.06.2011 respectively, by

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2013.11.18 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No.24736 of 2013 & connected cases [4]

¶25

the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as an Arbitrator. In CWP No. 24736/13 and CWP No. 24754/13 there is no award of the Arbitrator. In some of the cases awards have been challenged by respondent nos. 1 & 2 before ADJ Jalandhar. In all the cases the petitioners have received compensation awarded by the Competent Authority/Arbitrator.

¶26

5] The petitioners' main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefit of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), namely, solatium and interest was not granted to them despite the fact that this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings versus Union of India and others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 375, has categorically held that even in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, the above mentioned two statutory benefits are equally admissible to the affected land-owners. The petitioners also rely upon two decisions of this Court, dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.7457 of 2012 (Bhag Singh and another versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others) (Annexure P-2) and dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and others) (Annexure P-3), whereby the benefit of solatium and interest in terms of the above-cited decision of this Court, has been extended to the land-owners whose lands were also acquired alongwith that of the petitioners.

¶27

6] Another grievance of the petitioners is that besides submission of applications etc., they are running from pillar to post before the officers of respondent No.2-National Highways Authority for the release of above-mentioned benefits but the same are with-held only on the plea that no directions have

¶28

Kumar Mohinder 2013.11.18 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶29

CWP No.24736 of 2013 & connected cases [5]

¶30

been given by this Court in their case(s). The aggrieved petitioners have now approached this Court.

¶31

7] We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record. 8] The principles laid down by this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra), are not in dispute. Similarly, the fact that the benefit of solatium and interest has been extended by this Court to the land-owners of same acquisition vide order Annexure P-2, can also be hardly disputed. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is imperative upon respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider the petitioners' claim for the grant of solatium and interest in accordance with the decision of this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra).

¶32

9] The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 that let these petitions be treated as applications on behalf of the petitioners under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with National Highways Act, 1956 and their claim regarding grant of solatium and interest be determined within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The amount found due shall then be released by respondent Nos.1 & 2 within a period of one month thereafter.

¶33

Dasti.

¶34

November 13, 2013 [MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN] Mohinder JUDGE

¶35

Kumar Mohinder 2013.11.18 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Chanan Singh & Ors. v. U.O.I & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanan Singh & Ors. v. U.O.I & 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

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Iqbal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Dharamvir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Narottam Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.