Surya Kant, J.@mdashNotice of motion.
On our asking, Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Senior Panel Special Engagement Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1; Mr. Rishi
Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. P.S. Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed-over two copies of the petition to each learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 1 and 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 at this stage.
3. The petitioners'' land falling within the revenue estate of village Paniar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, was acquired by the respondents under the
National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''1956 Act'') and the Land Acquisition Collector-Competent Authority, Gurdaspur,
passed the Award on 10.08.2010.
4. The petitioners'' 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 them despite the fact that this Court in M/s. Golden Iron
and Steel Forging Vs. Union of India and others, 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 petitioners also rely 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
petitioners.
5. Another grievance of the petitioners is that besides submission of applications etc., they are 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 been given by this Court in their case(s). The aggrieved petitioners have 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 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
petitioners'' 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).
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The petitioners shall move an application before the notified Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, within a period of one
month for the grant of afore-said 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(s) is/are entitled to the aforesaid benefits, especially in view
the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court relied upon 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) National Highways Authority of India shall be required to disburse the additional amount as per the supplementary Award within a period of
two months from the date of passing of the supplementary Award subject to its right to challenge the same before appropriate forum.
9. Disposed of.
