← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27029/2016disposed of

Hargurbir Kaur And ANR v. Union Of India Th Secretary And ORS

2016-12-23Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 27029 of 2016 Decided on : 23.12.2016 Hargurbir Kaur and another . . . Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the respondentauthorities to release the solatium and other statutory benefits along with interest to the petitioners being the land owners under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act').

2.

Since, the writ of Mandamus has been sought to be issued and the petitioners have approached this Court without first approaching the respondent-authorities for redressal of their grievances, therefore, after arguing for sometime, it was prayed that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to first approach the respondent-authorities by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation in the light of judgment of this Court rendered in the case "M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings Vs. Union of India and others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 375".

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we Jawala Ram 2017.01.09 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 27029 of 2016 - 2 - consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioners to file detailed and comprehensive representation by claiming the solatium and interest in respect of the acquisition made under the Act within a period of two months from today. In case such representation is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the respondent-authorities within three months therefrom, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) December 23, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.01.09 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh