Disposed

Surjit Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2014CWP/8760/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered respondent authorities to treat the writ petitions as applications for solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act read with the National Highways Act, directing determination within three months and release of dues within one month.

What did the court decide?

Order treated as application for solatium and interest to be determined within three months; dues to be released within one month thereafter.

Surjit Kaur & Ors. 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.8760 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 08, 2014

¶3

Surjit Kaur and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.8763 of 2014 Harpal Singh and another ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.8776 of 2014 Ram Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL. Present : Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs.Jaspal K.Gurna, 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 No.3.

¶4

¶5

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

¶6

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶7

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***

¶8

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶9

Notice of motion.

¶10

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.

¶11

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 12:09 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶12

CWP Nos.8760 of 2014 & connected cases [2]

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has handedover two copies of the petition each to learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

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

¶15

3] The petitioners are residents of village Abdal, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Their lands, as described in para No.2 of the writ petitions, have been acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’).

¶16

4] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Amrisar-I, passed the Awards on 21.12.2009 and 9.11.2012.

¶17

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 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

¶18

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 12:09 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶19

CWP Nos.8760 of 2014 & connected cases [3]

¶20

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 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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).

¶24

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

¶25

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 12:09 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶26

CWP Nos.8760 of 2014 & connected cases [4]

¶27

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

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 08, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶30

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 12:09 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Surjit Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Kaur & Ors. 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

Hawa Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chander Bhan etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Phul Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chhinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vikram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.