Dismissed

Gurnam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2019CWP/9401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP filed seeking solatium and interest regarding land acquisition. Petitioner approached arbitrator separately. Court allowed application for placing record, dismissed writ petition as not maintainable on same cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Application for placing application filed by petitioner before Arbitrator allowed; Writ Petition dismissed.

Gurnam Singh and Another Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

114

¶3

CWP No.9401 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.05.2019

¶4

Gurnam Singh and another

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others ....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM-8287-CWP-2019

¶13

Application for placing on record application filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator as Annexure P-5 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The same is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶14

CM stands disposed of.

¶15

CWP No.9401 of 2019

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 for relief of solatium and interest in terms of the judgment passed by Division Bench in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings Vs. Union of India

¶17

and others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 375.

¶18

The acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') took place by virtue of notification dated 13.05.2009 and thereafter award was passed on 24.12.2009. Against the said award, the petitioners admittedly have filed an application (Annexure P-5) before the

¶19

Parveen Kumar 2019.05.30 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

114 CWP No.9401 of 2019 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar claiming the interest and solatium etc. The relevant portion of the claim petition reads as under:

¶23

“2.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶24

The Land Acquisition Authority has assessed the value of Chahi land @ Rs.9375. Aggrieved by the said award applicants is making reference to the arbitrator appointed by the Central Government as provided U/S. 3(5) of the National Highways Act for determining the quantum/valuation, market price, solatium, enhanced compensation and other benefits as provided under the National Highways Act and Rules framed there.

¶25

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶26

10. The applicants is also entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of notification till realization of enhanced amount.” Once the petitioners have already approached the Arbitrator for necessary relief, the present writ petition on the same cause of action would not be maintainable.

¶27

Faced with this situation, counsel does not press the writ petition and prays for liberty to agitate his grievances before the Arbitrator to whom he has already approached.

¶28

Ordered accordingly.

¶29

23.05.2019 pvd

¶30

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶32

Parveen Kumar 2019.05.30 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurnam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Karan Vs State of Haryana etc.

Devender and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ashu Gupta Vs Land Acquisition Collector and Another

Banti Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs Bbmb and Ors.

Priya Sehdev and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others