Disposed

Mangal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2016CWP/23303/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-grant of solatium and interest in land acquired under the National Highways Act. The Court directed the Competent Authority to process claims based on existing precedents and court orders, directing HR&I to deposit payable amounts in fixed deposits pending litigation finality.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to apply within one month; Competent Authority to determine claim and pass supplementary award within four months if entitled; NHAI to deposit amount in fixed deposit account pend

Mangal Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.23303 of 2016. Date of Decision: November 10, 2016

¶3

Mangal Singh and others

¶4

......Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Panel Counsel for UOI. Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for NHAI. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶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, Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, counsel for Union of India accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶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 villages Bariar, Sajada and Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.11.30 14:18I attest to the accuracy andLehal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Their land, as described in para No.5 integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No.23303 of 2016 [2]

¶23

of the writ petition, has been acquired by respondent No.1 under the National Highways Act, 1956, for widening/four-lanning, maintenance,management and operation etc. of National Highway No.15.

¶24

The Awards were passed in the years 2009 and 2010 by the Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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 2016.11.30 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

[3]

¶30

CWP No.23303 of 2016

¶31

Steel Forgings's case (supra).

¶32

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:-

¶33

“.....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.

¶34

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

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the following

¶36

terms:-

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(iii) The Competent Authority shall thereafter determine the

¶40

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.11.30 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CWP No.23303 of 2016

¶42

[4]

¶43

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

¶44

(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;

¶45

(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).

¶46

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶48

November 10, 2016	[SUDIP AHLUWALIA]
mohinder	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶49

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.11.30 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mangal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh & 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

Haryana Wakf Board Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shingara Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sassi Inder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jormal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Others

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.