Allowed

Tarsem Singh v. UOI & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2014CWP/7996/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the National Highways Authority and the Union of India to process the petitioner's claim for solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Highways Act, 1956, following principles laid down in prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to treat the petition as an application for solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the National Highways Act, 1956 and deci

Tarsem Singh Vs UOI & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.7996 of 2014 Date of Decision: April 29, 2014

¶3

Tarsem Singh ……Petitioner Versus

¶4

Union of India and others ……Respondents

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Present : Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navin Mahajan, 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.

¶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

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

On our asking, Mr.Navin Mahajan, 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.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has handedover two copies of the writ petition to each learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents at this stage.

¶16

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.02 11:57 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.7996 of 2014

¶18

[2]

¶19

3] The petitioner is resident of VPO Khanpur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiapur. His land measuring about 13 marlas, as per the details given in para No.5 of the writ petition, was acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’).

¶20

4] The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Mukerian, passed the Award in the year 2009. 5] 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 him 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 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) (Annexure P-1) 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.

¶21

6] Another grievance of the petitioner is that besides submission of applications etc., he is running from pillar to post before the officers of respondent No.2-National Highways

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.02 11:57 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.7996 of 2014

¶24

[3]

¶25

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 his case. The aggrieved petitioner has 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 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 petitioner's 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

9] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 that let this petition be treated as application on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with National Highways Act, 1956 and his 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.

¶28

Dasti.

¶29

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.02 11:57 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Tarsem Singh v. UOI & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. UOI & 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

Balbir Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shanti Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prahlad Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sudesh Kumar Arya Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mange Ram & Anr. Vs State of Haryana &Ors

Rajinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana &Ors