Rakesh Gupta v. Union Of India & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.

Date of Decision: July 14, 2016 Rakesh Gupta .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ......Respondents 2.

CWP-26146-2015 Baljinder Kaur and others ......Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others ......Respondents 3.

CWP-4122-2016 Baljinder Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ......Respondents 4.

CWP-547-2016 Kali Ram and another .....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr.Shailendra Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel counsel for UOI.

Mr.NDS Mann, DAG, Punjab.

Mr.Shiv Charan Singh Chahal, Advocate for Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate and

-2Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.3-NHAI.

........

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.

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.3202, 26146 of 2015 and 547 and 4122 of 2016. In all these cases, the petitioners have laid challenge to the Award dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, `the 1956 Act').

The aforesaid Award has been challenged on two counts, namely, (i) that instead of assessing the market value independently in exercise of his quasi judicial powers, the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market value only on the basis of the report of the District Price Fixation Committee; and (ii) the solatium and the additional amount under Section 23(2) and 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applicable to an acquisition under the 1956 Act, has not been awarded in addition to the `market value' of the acquired land.

-32013, rendered in Joginder Singh vs Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak-cum-Chairman of the Committee and others , passed in CWP No.1106-2013.

Without going into the merits of the second contention, the instant writ petitions are allowed in terms of the above cited decision; the impugned Award is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh award in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE July 14, 2016 ( DARSHAN SINGH ) meenu JUDGE