Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmaljit Kaur vs Union Of India And Others on 18 September, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20687 of 2013
Date of Decision : September 18, 2013
Nirmaljit Kaur ......Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Central Government Standing
Counsel for respondent No.1-UOI.
Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2.
Mr.J.S.Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.3.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
On our asking, Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and Mr.J.S.Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed- over two copies each of the petition to learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents.
3] The petitioner is resident of village Kalar Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Her land measuring about 14 Kumar Mohinder 2013.09.20 11:49 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.20687 of 2013 [2] marla comprised in Khasra Nos.32/3/1 and 32/3/8 (co-sharer) falling within the revenue estate of village Kaler Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') and the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurdaspur, passed the Award on 10.08.2010.
4] The petitioner's main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefits admissible under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), namely, solatium and interest have not been granted to her 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 even in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, the above mentioned two statutory benefits are admissible to the affected land-owners. 5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that identical issue has already been decided by us vide order dated 7.08.2013 passed in CWP No.17041 of 2013 (Rakhwant Kaur versus Union of India and others) and connected cases, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. The directions contained in the order dated 7.8.2013 in Rajwant Kaur's case (supra) shall be equally applicable qua the instant petitioner.
6] Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
September 18, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.09.20 11:49
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh