Disposed

Ram Kishan and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Sept 2016CWP/20226/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-grant of solatium and interest for land acquired for National Highway development. Court directed authorities to consider claims based on Golden Iron precedent and subsequent Supreme Court directions regarding pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direct petitioners to apply for solatium and interest; authorities to determine claim and pass supplementary award within four months if entitled.

Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.20226 of 2016. Date of Decision: September 28, 2016

¶3

Ram Kishan and others

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

-.-

¶12

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

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J . (Oral)

¶17

Notice of motion.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶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 Behrola, Tehsil and District Palwal. Their land as described in para No.2 of the writ petition, has

¶22

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.10.03 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.20226 of 2016

¶24

[2]

¶25

been acquired by respondent No.4 under the National Highways Act, 1956, for development of National Highway No.2 (Eastern Peripheral Expressway).

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

The petitioners, besides submitting their claim-applications etc., are said to be running from pillar to post for the release of abovementioned benefits which are said to have been withheld on the plea that there are no specific directions given by this Court in their favour.

¶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 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 Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.10.03 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CWP No.20226 of 2016

¶32

[3]

¶33

Steel Forgings's case (supra).

¶34

While considering the claim of the petitioners in the light of the above-cited decision, the respondents shall be required to follow the recent directions dated 11.08.2016 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10533 of 2011 (Sunita Mehra and another versus Union of India and others), to the following effect:-

¶35

“.....that the award of solatium and interest on solatium should be made effective only to proceedings pending on the date of the High Court order in Golden Iron & Steel Forgings vs. Union of India and others, i.e. 28.03.2008. Concluded cases should not be opened. As for future proceedings, the position would be covered by the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (came into force on 01.01.2014), which Act has been made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 by virtue of notification/ order issued under the provisions of the Act of 2013.

¶36

With the aforesaid modification and clarification in the order of the High Court, these civil appeals are disposed of.....”

¶37

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the following

¶38

terms:-

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(iii) The Competent Authority shall thereafter determine the

¶42

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.10.03 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

CWP No.20226 of 2016

¶44

[4]

¶45

petitioner's claim for the aforesaid benefits, especially in view of the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited above;

¶46

(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 application;

¶47

(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 Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra).

¶48

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

[SURYA KANT]

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

September 28, 2016	[SUDIP AHLUWALIA]
mohinder	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶52

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.10.03 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ram Kishan and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan and 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

Vinod Kumar Madan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Managing Society of Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Barjinder Kuamr Jindal Vs Union of India and Ors.