Allowed

Hardeep Singh v. U.O.I and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2013CWP/27767/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-grant of solatium and interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in land acquired by NHAI. Court directed respondents to determine the claim within three months and release the amount found due within one month.

What did the court decide?

Trial of claim for solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of LAA, 1894; determination within 3 months; release of amount within 1 month.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.27767 of 2013 Date of Decision: December 18, 2013

¶4

Hardeep Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 27770 of 2013 Tarsem Lal ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 27771 of 2013 Manjeet Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No. 27772 of 2013 Jasdeep Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 5. Civil Writ Petition No. 27773 of 2013 Hardeep Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 6. Civil Writ Petition No. 27774 of 2013 Gurbachan Lal and another ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 7. Civil Writ Petition No. 27775 of 2013 Deep Inderjit Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 8. Civil Writ Petition No. 27776 of 2013 Parkash Wati ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 9. Civil Writ Petition No. 27777 of 2013 Parkash Kaur ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 10. Civil Writ Petition No. 27778 of 2013 Renu Bala and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents

¶5

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶6

[2]

¶7

CWP No.27767 of 2013 & connected cases

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶9

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.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On our asking, Mr. Hitesh 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

3] The petitioners are residents of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, 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’);

¶20

i) CWP No.27767 of 2013: 5 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 41 (Abadi) situated within the revenue estate of village Chak

¶21

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶22

[3]

¶23

CWP No.27767 of 2013 & connected cases

¶24

	Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
ii) CWP No.27770 of 2013:	7 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 28//18/1, 19/2, 21/1/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
iii) CWP No.27771 of 2013:	5 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 106//10/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
iv) CWP No.27772 of 2013:	6 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 106//10/1, 34//1, 34//3, 8/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
v) CWP No.27773 of 2013:	6 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 41 (Abadi) situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
vi) CWP No.27774 of 2013:	10 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 28//27, 28//9/8 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
vii) CWP No.27775 of 2013:	6 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 41 (Abadi) situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.
viii) CWP No.27776 of 2013:	2 ½ Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 101//4 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶25

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶26

[4]

¶27

CWP No.27767 of 2013 & connected cases

¶28

ix) CWP No.27777 of 2013: 3 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 106/9 situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Alabaksh, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶29

x) CWP No.27778 of 2013: 11 Marlas comprised in Khasra no. 3//20 situated within the revenue estate of village Latifpur, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶30

4] The award was passed in CWP No.27772 of 2013 on 27.5.2011 by the Arbitrator and the same has been challenged by respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar where the matter is pending. In CWP Nos.27770 and 27778 of 2013 the matter is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. In CWP Nos.27767, 27771, 27773, 27774, 27775, 27776 and 27777 of 2013 the petitioners have received the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority and they have not approached the Arbitrator for enhancement of compensation.

¶31

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-1)

¶32

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶33

CWP No.27767 of 2013 & connected cases [5]

¶34

and dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and others) (Annexure P-2), 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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).

¶37

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

¶38

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶39

CWP No.27767 of 2013 & connected cases [6]

¶40

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.

¶41

Dasti.

¶42

December 18, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶43

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.27 12:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Hardeep Singh v. U.O.I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh v. U.O.I 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

Harshvardhan Memorial Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Nilam Kumari Vs Tribunal Improvement Trust & Ors.

Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs U.O.I and Ors.

Gurbachan Lal & Anr. Vs U.O.I and Ors.

Parkash Wati Vs U.O.I and Ors.