Disposed

Gurbachan Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2014CWP/19868/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a notice to the respondents and directed them to consider the petitioner's claim for solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, applicable to land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, in accordance with binding precedent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to move an application for soleatium and interest; determination of entitlement by the Competent Authority; supplementary award if entitled; disbursement of additional amount.

Gurbachan Kaur 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.19868of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 24.09.2014

¶3

Gurbachan Kaur

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶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. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

On our asking, Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Sr.
Standing Counsel for UOI 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 petitioner has handed- over
two copies of the petition to each of the learned counsels
appearing for the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.25 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP-19868-2014

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

The petitioner is resident of village Bahadurpur,
Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. Her land, as fully
described in para No.3 of the writ petition, had been
acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’). The award
was passed in the year 2010 by the Land Acquisition
Collector/Competent Authority.

¶20

The petitioner’s 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
her despite the fact that this Court in M/s Golden Iron and

¶21

Steel Forgings versus Union of India and others, 2011 (4) RCR

¶22

(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 petitioner also relies 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

¶23

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 decisions of this Court, has been extended
to the similarly situated land-owners.

¶24

Another grievance of the petitioner is that besides
submission of applications etc.,she is running from pillar to

¶25

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.25 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP-19868-2014

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

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 her case. The aggrieved
petitioner has 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
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 petitioner’s claim for the grant of
solatium and interest in accordance with the decision of this
Court in Golden Ironand Steel Forgings'scase (supra).

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the
following terms:-

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall move an application before the
notified Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition
Collector within a period of one month for the grant
of aforesaid benefits;

¶33

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.25 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶34

CWP-19868-2014

¶35

- 4 -

¶36

(ii) The said Competent Authority will issue notice and
call for the records/reply from the National Highway
Authority of India;

¶37

(iii) The Competent Authority shall thereafter determine
whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the
aforesaid benefits, especially in view of the
decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
relied upon by the claimant(s);

¶38

(iv) If the petitioner is found entitled to, a self-
speaking supplementary Award to this effect shall be
passed within a period of four months from the date of
filing of the application;

¶39

(v) The National Highways Authority of India shall be
required to disburse the additional amount as per the
supplementary Award within a period of two months from
the date of passing of the supplementary Award subject
to its right to challenge the same before appropriate
forum.

¶40

 Disposed of.

¶41

 Dasti.

¶42

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.25 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶43

CWP-19868-2014

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.25 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gurbachan Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbachan Kaur 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

Savitari Devi Vs Patiala Improvement Trust

Bhaliwal Sarvhitkari Arya High School Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Rati Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Inderjit Singh @ Bantu Vs State of Punjab

Subroto Day Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Vs State of Haryana & Ors.