Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11701 of 2014 Date of Decision: June 30, 2014 Onkar Singh ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.
**** Present : Mr.Sukhdev S.Kanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs.Jaspal K.Gurna, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India-respondent No.1.
Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Addl.
AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.3&4.
--- 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, Mrs.Jaspal K.Gurna, Central Government Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and Mr.P.S.Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed- over two copies of the petition to each learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2].In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents.
3].The petitioner is resident of Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
His land situated within the revenue estate of Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.11701 of 2014 [2].villages Usman Sahid and Chak Kasim, Sub Division Dasuya and revenue estates of Dala, Resulpur, Darapur, Urmar, Jhingar Kalan, Kainthan and Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, has been acquired by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1956 Act’).4].The award was passed on 28.01.2009 by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
5].The petitioner's main grievance is that while assessing the compensation, the benefit of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act').namely, solatium and interest was not granted to him 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 two statutory benefits are equally admissible to the affected land-owneRs.The petitioner also relies upon two decisions of this Court, dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.7457 of 2012 (Bhag Singh and another versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and otheRs.and dated 27.9.2012 passed in CWP No.14642 of 2012 (Prem Kaur versus Union of India and otheRs.whereby the benefit of solatium and interest in terms of the above-cited decision of this Court, has been extended to the land-owners whose lands were also acquired alongwith that of the petitioner.
6].Another grievance of the petitioner is that besides submission of applications etc., he is running from pillar to post before the officers of respondent No.2-National Highways Authority for the release of above-mentioned benefits but the same are withheld only on the plea that no directions have Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.11701 of 2014 [3].been given by this Court in his case.
The aggrieved petitioner has now approached this Court.
7].We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record.
8].The principles laid down by this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra).are not in dispute.
Similarly, the fact that the benefit of solatium and interest has been extended by this Court to the land-owners of same acquisition 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 & 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for the grant of solatium and interest in accordance with the decision of this Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forgings's case (supra).9].The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 that let this petition be treated as application on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with National Highways Act, 1956 and his claim regarding grant of solatium and interest be 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 & 2 within a period of one month thereafter.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT].JUDGE June 30, 2014 [LISA GILL].Mohinder JUDGE Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh