Disposed

Babu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2016CWP/19240/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the non-grant of solatium and interest to landowners whose land was acquired for the Eastern Peripheral Expressway. The Court directed the Competent Authority to determine the claim and pass a supplementary award within four months, with the NHAI to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to apply for benefits; Competent Authority to determine claim and pass supplementary award within four months; NHAI to deposit amount in interest-bearing fixed deposit.

Babu & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.19240 of 2016. Date of Decision: September 19, 2016

¶3

Babu and others ......Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA.

¶7

*******

¶8

Present: Mr.Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana. Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Panel Counsel for UOI. Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for NHAI.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Surya Kant, J . (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2; Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, counsel for Union of India accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶16

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to each abovenamed learned counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶17

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.21 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No.19240 of 2016

¶19

[2]

¶20

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶21

The petitioners are residents of village Khushrupur, Tehsil and District Palwal. Their land as described in para No.2 of the writ petition, has been acquired by respondent No.4 under the National Highways Act, 1956, for building maintenance, management and operation of National Highway (Eastern Peripheral Expressway).

¶22

The Award was passed in the year 2010 by the Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority.

¶23

The petitioners' main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefits of Sections 23 and 28 and 34 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 in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 also, these two statutory benefits are equally admissible to the affected land-owners. The petitioners also rely upon the 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 in CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and others), whereby the benefits of solatium and interest in terms of the above-cited decision, were extended to similarly situated land-owners.

¶24

The petitioners, besides submitting the applications etc., have been running from pillar to post for the release of above-mentioned benefits Mohinder Kumar Kambojbut the same are said to have been withheld on the plea that there are no 2016.09.21 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.19240 of 2016

¶26

[3]

¶27

such directions given by this Court in their favour.

¶28

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

¶29

The principles laid down by this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra), are undisputable. The fact that the benefit of solatium and interest has been extended to other similarly situated landowners vide order dated 27.09.2012 in Bhag Singh's case (supra), can be hardly denied. In these circumstances, it appears imperative upon the respondents 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).

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the following

¶31

terms:-

¶32

(i) The petitioners may apply to the Competent Authoritycum-Land Acquisition Collector within a period of one month for the grant of aforesaid benefits;

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The Competent Authority shall thereafter determine the petitioners' claim for the aforesaid benefits, especially in view of the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied upon by the claimant(s);

¶35

(iv) If the petitioners are 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

¶36

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.21 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

[4]

CWP No.19240 of 2016

application;

(v) The National Highways Authority of India is directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest-bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disbursed subject to attaining finality of the litigation in the instant case.

¶41

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

[SURYA KANT]

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

September 19, 2016 [SUDIP AHLUWALIA] mohinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶45

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.21 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Babu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Jodha Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Babu Ram & Ors. Vs National Highway Authority of India & Ors.

Rajbir Singh and Ors. Vs National Highway Authority of India and Ors.

The Indian Council of Social Science Research North Western Regional Centre Vs Chuni Lal

Kuldeep & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Narender and Anr. Vs National Highway Authority of India and Ors.