Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 January, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Amol Rattan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.248 of 2014
Date of Decision :January 13, 2014
Jagdev Singh and others ......Petitioners
versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.
----
Present : Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Central Government Standing
counsel for respondent No.1-UOI.
Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional AG, Punjab.
Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
---
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 accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to each learned counsel for the respondents 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.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.16 11:42 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.248 of 2014 [2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents.
The petitioners land falling within the revenue estate of villages Babri, Rania, Lehal, Bidipur, Chur Chak, Jaffarwal, Shahpur and Suchetgarh, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, was acquired by the respondents under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') and the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurdaspur, passed the awards.
The petitioners' 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 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 even in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, the above mentioned statutory benefits are admissible to the affected land-owners.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that identical issue already stands 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 with a direction to respondent Nos.2 that let this petition be treated as an application on behalf of the petitioners under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with National Highways Act, 1956 and their claim regarding grant of solatium and interest be Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.16 11:42 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.248 of 2014 [3] determined within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The amount found due shall then be released by respondent Nos.1 & 3 within a period of one month thereafter.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
January 13, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2014.01.16 11:42
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh