Dismissed

Gurbakhsh Singh v. Union of India &Ors

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2014CWP/9308/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by land owners seeking compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act. Haditold by the petitioner that solatium and interest were not granted. The Court relied on precedent and a connected matter, directing that the claim for solatium and interest be determined within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to determine solatium and interest due to petitioners within three months of service of this order.

Gurbakhsh Singh 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.9308 of 2014 Date of Decision : May 15, 2014

¶3

Gurbakhsh Singh ......Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Union of India and others .....Respondents

¶6

Civil Writ Petition No.9313 of 2014

¶7

Sukhwinder Singh and others

¶8

......Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

Union of India and others

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN.

¶13

Present : Mr.A.S.Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Jaspal K.Gurna, Central Government Standing counsel for respondent No.1-UOI. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

On our asking, Ms.Jaspal K.Gurna, Central Government Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr.P.S.Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶21

Let two copies each of the writ petitions be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 15:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶23

[2]

¶24

CWP Nos.9308 & 9313 of 2014

¶25

dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶26

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.

¶27

The petitioners' land falling within the revenue estate of villages Babbri and Bariar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was acquired by the respondents under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') and the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurdaspur, passed the Award on 10/12.11.2010.

¶28

The petitioners' main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefits admissible under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), namely, solatium and interest have not been 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 statutory benefits are admissible to the affected land-owners.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that identical issue already stands decided by us vide order dated 7.08.2013 passed in CWP No.17041 of 2013 (Rakhwant Kaur versus Union of India and others) and connected cases, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in the same terms with a direction to respondent No.2 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

¶30

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 15:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶31

CWP Nos.9308 & 9313 of 2014 [3]

¶32

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 & 3 within a period of one month thereafter.

¶33

Dasti.

¶34

May 15, 2014 [MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN] Mohinder JUDGE

¶35

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.20 15:21 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Gurbakhsh Singh v. Union of India &Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbakhsh Singh 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

Sarwan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Ors.