Harbans Singh v. Union Of India & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.2.2016 Harbans Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents.

1.

Whether the Reporters of the 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? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG.

PRESENT: Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") in view of the judgments of this Court M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings versus Union of India and others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 375 and in CWP No. 26475 of 2014 titled as Gulshan Kumar v. Union of India (Annexure P-1) and CWP No. 12095 of 2015 titled as

-2Bachan Singh and others v. Union of India and others (Annexure P2). 2.

The land of the petitioner, as fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition, had been acquired by respondents No.1 and 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956.

3.

The award was passed on 26.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) by the Land Acquisition Collector/Competent Authority. In pursuance to the award, Annexure P-3, the petitioner was granted total compensation of ` 2,75,000/- vide cheque dated 26.2.2011 (Annexure P-4). 4.

The petitioner's main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefits of Sections 23 and 28 of the Act, namely, solatium and interest were not granted to him despite the fact that this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings' case (supra), has categorically held that even in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, the above mentioned two statutory benefits are equally admissible to the affected land-owners. The petitioner also rely upon two decisions of this Court, both dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.7457 of 2012 (Bhag Singh and another versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others) and CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and others) whereby the benefits of solatium and interest in terms of the above-cited decision of this Court, have been extended to the similarly situated land-owners. Reliance was placed upon the orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively, passed by this Court in similar circumstances.

5.

Another grievance of the petitioner is that besides submission of applications etc., the petitioner is running from pillar to post before the officers of respondent No.2 for the release of

-3abovementioned benefits but the same are withheld only on the plea that no directions have been given by this Court in its case. The aggrieved petitioner has now approached this Court.

6.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record.

7.

The principles laid down by this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings' case (supra), are not in dispute. Further, the fact that the benefits of solatium and interest have been extended by this Court to the similarly situated land-owners vide order dated 27.09.2012 in Bhag Singh's case (supra), can also be hardly disputed. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is imperative upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for the grant of solatium and interest in accordance with the decision of this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings' case (supra).

8.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The petitioner shall move application before the notified Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Collector within a period of one month for the grant of aforesaid benefits;

(ii) The said Competent Authority will issue notice and call for the records/reply from the National Highway Authority of India;

(iii) The Competent Authority shall thereafter determine whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid benefits, especially in view of the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied

-4upon by the claimants;

(iv) If the petitioner is found entitled to, a self speaking supplementary Award to this effect shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of filing of the application;

(v) The National Highways Authority of India shall deposit the amount, if any, payable in terms of supplementary award, in interest-bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10695 of 2011 titled as M/s Golden Iron & Steel Forgings v. Union of India and others and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15104 of 2014 titled: Project Director, National Highway, No. IV vs. Rajeshwar Singh and Ors.

9.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 11, 2016 (RAJ RAHUL GARG) gbs JUDGE