Disposed

Atma Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2021CWP/5044/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes three civil writ petitions challenging land award compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. The court allows withdrawal of the deposited amount as an interim measure to prevent a work stoppage while Section 34 objections are pending before a district judge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.85 lakh per acre along with interest and other statutory benefits as an interim measure.

Atma Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases ASHOK KUMAR 1 2021.10.04 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

229 CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2021 ATMA SINGH ..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..Respondents CWP-4905-2021 (O&M) AVTAR SINGH AND ANR. ..Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..Respondents CWP-6630-2021 (O&M) GURJEET SINGH AND ANR. ..Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..Respondents

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶4

Present: Mr. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶5

Ms. Sunint Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶6

Mr. RS Madan, Advocate for NHAI (CWP No.5044, 6630 of 2021)

¶7

Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for NHAI (CWP No.4905 of 2021)

¶8

¶9

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

¶10

��

¶11

��

¶12

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

¶13

¶14

ASHOK KUMAR 2021.10.04 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document By this order, CWP No.5044, 4905 and 6630 of 2021 shall stand

¶15

disposed of. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the facts are taken from CWP No.5044 of 2021.

¶16

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 19.08.2020 passed by the competent authority for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act').

¶17

In order to utilise the land for widening the Chandigarh-KhararLudhiana stretch of National Highway No.95, the Union of India issued a Notification on 18.06.2018 under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act. The competent authority vide award No.2 dated 05.10.2018 assessed the compensation @ Rs.2.25 crore per acre with respect to land situated in village Marauli Kalan. On the applications filed by the petitioners and the National Highway Authority of India, the matter was referred by the Central Government to the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act. The Arbitrator vide an award dated 03.03.2020 set aside the award passed by the competent authority for land acquisition and directed it to pass a fresh award. A fresh award has been passed on 19.08.2020 assessing the compensation @

¶18

Rs.85 lakh per acre. The aforesaid amount has been deposited. The petitioners have filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, assailing the correctness of the award passed by the

¶19

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

¶20

¶21

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases ASHOK KUMAR 2021.10.04 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Arbitrator on 03.03.2020 wherein the matter has been remitted back to the

¶22

competent authority by the Arbitrator.

¶23

The petitioners claim that the Arbitrator has assessed the compensation for the adjoining land owners at Rs.2.85 crore per acre whereas in the case of the petitioners, the matter has been remanded back to the Collector. He submits that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the competent authority. He further submits that the competent authority has passed the award on 19.08.2020 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that due to the aforesaid dispute, the work of extending the National Highway has come to a stand still as the petitioners are refusing to handover the possession. He submits that the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw the amount assessed by the competent authority vide award dated 19.08.2020 and the remaining matter can be decided by the Court where objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act are pending. Moreover, he has stated that NHAI is disputing the correctness of assessment made by the competent authority as well as the Arbitrator in the case of other owners and for that purpose, it has already filed objection petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have already suffered due to an erroneous decision of the Arbitrator.

¶26

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

¶27

¶28

ASHOK KUMAR 2021.10.04 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some

¶30

length, this Bench is of the considered view that the work of widening of the National Highway cannot be stopped merely to ensure proper payment to the land owners. It is not in dispute that the various objection petitions filed by the petitioners in all these writ petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, are pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. No doubt, the petitioners do have a genuine grievance as the owners of the adjoining land have been held entitled to market value @2.25 crore per acre whereas the petitioners are being offered only Rs.85 lakh per acre. However, since the matter is pending before another Court, it is not considered appropriate to finally opine on the matter.

¶31

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the writ petitions are disposed of with the observations that the petitioners can withdraw the amount deposited by the Natonal Highway of India @ Rs.85 lakh per acre along with interest and other statutory benefits, as an interim measure subject to the final decision of the Court. Further, the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, is directed to decide the objection petitions filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act within a period of 3 months positively. This arrangement has been made in the public interest and any observation made by the Court shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of concerned cases.

¶32

CWP-5044-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

¶33

ASHOK KUMAR 5 2021.10.04 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶35

disposed of.

¶36

27.09.2021 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE

Atma Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atma Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakuntla Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satnarayan @ Satya Narayan Kataria Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kusumlat Vs Sanjeev Kumar

Anil Kumar Garg Vs Municipal Corp Faridabad & Ors.

Saroj Pahawa Vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad and Ors.

Avtar Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.