Allowed

Amar Nath v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2014CWP/10493/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench directed the National Highways Authority of India to treat the writ petitions as applications under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The authority must determine and release solatium and interest to land-owners acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, adhering to prior judgments of this Court, within three months of receipt of the certified order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to determine claim for solatium and interest within three months and respondent Nos.1 & 2 to release the amount within one month.

Amar Nath Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10493 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 27, 2014

¶3

Amar Nath ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.10499 of 2014 Surat Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.10500 of 2014 Gurbachan Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No.10530 of 2014 Harwinder Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶5

¶6

Present : Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs.Jaspal K.Gurna, Central Government Standing

¶7

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 No.3.

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶14

[2]

¶15

CWP No.10493 of 2014 and connected cases.

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

Notice of motion.

¶18

On our asking, Mrs.Jaspal K.Gurna, 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 No.3.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

3] The petitioners are residents of villages Suchetgarh and Babbri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Their land, as described in para No.3 of the writ petitions, has been acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’). 4] The Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority, Gurdaspur, passed the Award on 11.05.2011. 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

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.10493 of 2014 and connected cases. [3]

¶24

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) and dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and others) 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.

¶25

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 withheld 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.

¶26

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 dated 27.09.2012 in Bhag Singh's case (supra), 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).

¶27

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶28

CWP No.10493 of 2014 and connected cases. [4]

¶29

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.

¶30

Dasti.

¶31

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 27, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶32

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.28 15:13 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Amar Nath v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Nath v. Union of India & 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

Chandawali Pipe Industries Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sudesh Goyal Vs Ut Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Anr.

Harwinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Amit Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.