Allowed

Manjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2014CWP/18703/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land acquisition, the High Court directed the National Highways Authority and Union of India to pay solatium and interest to petitioners in accordance with prior judicial precedents, ordering payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the respondent authorities to determine the claim for solatium and interest within three months and release the amount found due within one month thereafter.

Manjit Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18703of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2014

¶3

Manjit Singh and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, Advocate
for the petitioners

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶11

Notice of motion.

¶12

On our asking, Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Central Government

¶13

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.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed-
over two copies of the petition to each of the learned

¶15

counsels for the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.10 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-18703-2014

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

The land of the petitioners, as fully described in

¶21

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’).

¶22

The Awards were passed in different years between
2009 to 2013 by the Land Acquisition Collector/Competent
Authority.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.10 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-18703-2014

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

The principles laid down by this Court in Golden

¶31

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 Iron and Steel Forgings'scase (supra).

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a

¶33

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

¶34

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.10 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CWP-18703-2014

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

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

¶38

Dasti.

¶39

 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

10.09.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶41

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.10 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 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

Gurbax Lal Vs Food Corporation of India & Anr.

International Human Rights Association Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pioneer Publicity Corp Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Ors.

Santokh Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.