← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27030/2016disposed of

Raghbir v. Union Of India & ANR.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 27030 of 2016 Decided on : 23.12.2016 Raghbir . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Jangvir Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 27030, 27037, 27069, 27071 & 27138 of 2016, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the issue involved therein is related to the release of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') and thus is identical. Relevant facts are being extracted from CWP No. 27030 of 2016.

2.

Since, the writ of Mandamus has been sought to be issued and the petitioner(s) has approached this Court without first approaching the respondent-authorities for redressal of his grievances, therefore, after arguing for sometime, it was prayed that liberty may be granted to the petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s), perusing the Jawala Ram 2017.01.09 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we

CWP No. 27030 of 2016 - 2 - consider it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by permitting the petitioners to file detailed and comprehensive representation(s) by claiming the solatium and interest in respect of the acquisition(s) made under the Act within a period of two months from today. In case such representations are filed by the petitioner(s), the same shall be decided by the respondentauthorities within three months therefrom, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) 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