Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2014CWP/18208/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the respondents to grant solatium and interest to landowners whose properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, relying on earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to treat it as an application for solatium and interest under the relevant Acts, to be determined within three months, followed by rel

Shiv Singh & Ors. Vs U. O. I. & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18208of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 04.09.2014

¶3

Sh. Shiv Singh and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶10

Present: Mr. Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners

¶11

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

On our asking, Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Central Government

¶14

Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Union of
India/respondent No.1, Mr. Sunil Sahore, Advocate for
NHAI/respondent No.2 and Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. Advocate
General, Punjab for respondent No.3.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed-

¶16

over two copies of the petition to each of the learned
counsels appearing for the respondents.

¶17

In view of the nature of order which we propose to

¶18

pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by
the respondents.

¶19

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-18208-2014

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

The petitioners are residents of village Talwandi
Kalan, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Their land, as
fully described in para No.3 of the writ petition, has been
acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’).

¶23

The award was passed in the year 2008 by the Land
Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority.

¶24

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) 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 similarly situated land-owners.

¶25

Another grievance of the petitioners is that
besides submission of applications etc., they are running

¶26

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-18208-2014

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

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.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
some length and gone through the record.

¶31

The principles laid down by this Court in Golden

¶32

Ironand Steel Forgings'scase (supra), are not in dispute.
Similarly, the fact that the benefit of solatium and interest
has been extended by this Court to the similarly situated
land-owners vide order dated 27.09.2012 in Bhag Singh'scase
(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 Ironand Steel Forgings'scase (supra).

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a

¶34

direction to respondent No.3 that let this petition be
treated as application 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

¶35

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CWP-18208-2014

¶37

- 4 -

¶38

of this order. The amount found due shall then be released by
respondent Nos.1 & 2 within a period of one month thereafter.

¶39

Dasti.

¶40

 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

04.09.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶42

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv 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

Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balam Khan Vs State of Haryana etc.

Gurpreet Singh @ Teetu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Murti Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dera Tapwala Vs State of Punjab & Ors.