Makhan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2026/167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Short-order follow-on disposal: CWP No. 167 of 2022 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana, decided 26.05.2026 by Harkesh Manuja, J. Petitioner Makhan Singh sought mandamus for solatium @ 100% with interest under Section 30 read with Schedule I, RFCTLARR Act 2013 (land acquisition compensation against Union of India/NHAI/Punjab). Petition disposed of in the same terms as Rajinder Singh v. NHAI, CWP No. 18620 of 2023, decided 06.04.2026 (treatment: followed); respondents (incl. NHAI, represented by D.K. Singal; Punjab, by AAG Gunjan Mehta) did not controvert coverage. Useful for precedent-tracking of solatium @ 100% claims under S. 30 with Schedule I of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in the same terms as Rajinder Singh's case (supra); pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Makhan Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

276

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 167 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2026

¶4

Makhan Singh

¶5

.......... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

.......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: Mr. Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks issuance of a

¶14

writ in the nature of Mandamus , thereby directing the respondents to pay solatium @ 100% alongwith interest in terms of Section 30 read with Schedule I of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶15

[2] Notice of motion qua respondent Nos. 2 & 3 only.

¶16

[3] Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2-NHAI, whereas Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶17

[4] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.04.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No. 18620 of 2023 titled as “Rajinder Singh and anr. Versus National Highway Authority of India and ors.”

¶18

[5] Learned counsel(s) for the respondent(s) are not in a position to controvert the above factual position.

¶19

DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.27 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

[2]

¶21

C.W.P. No. 167 of 2022 (O&M)

¶22

[6] After going through the judgment passed by this Court referred to above as well as the facts of the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

[7] Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as Rajinder Singh’s case (supra) .

¶24

[8] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶25

disposed off.

¶26

May 26, 2026	( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra'	JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶27

DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.27 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Makhan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makhan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumer Chand Deceased Thorugh Lrs. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasmat & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ram Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Joginder Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shoba Chand Alias Subash Chand through Its Lrs Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surinder Kaur and Another Vs Union of India and Others