IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. CWP-19799-2023 Reserved on: 10.02.2025 Date of decision: 20.03.2025 SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents

2. CWP-8072-2024 DHURENDER AND OTHERS ...Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-19799-2023).

Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-8072-2024).

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1 (in CWP-19799-2023).

Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. P.P. Chahar, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mago, Advocate, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocate Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate Mr. Sakal Sekri, Advocate and Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. M.L. Singhwal, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in CWP-8072-2024). Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No.3 (in CWP-19799-2023).

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since a common question of law is involved in both the writ petitions, therebys both the writ petitions are amenable to become decided through a common verdict.

For the sake of brevity the facts are taken from CWP-19799-2023

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, thus directing the respondents to award statutory benefit of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% and 15% akin to Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’), upon the market values quantified by the respondent No.2 vide its award No.1/H dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P-1), in lieu of the compulsory acquisition of the lands of the petitioners by the respondents, whereovers, the respondents assumed possession on 30.04.2012, in the light of the ratio of the judgment passed by this Court, on 12.04.2023 in LPA No.4965 of 2018, titled ‘National Highway Authority of India V. Resham Singh and others’.

3. A further prayer is made for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, therebys declaring Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) as unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that Section 3J of the Act of 1956 being struck down.

4. Vide Notification No.S.O. 3035(E) dated 27.11.2009 issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act of 1956, the respondent No.1 notified for compulsory acquisition the petitioners' land, being part of 955 kanals 16 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The said notification was for achieving a public purpose, namely, for building (widening/ four-laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.10, on the stretch of land from 119.850 km to 170.00 km (Rohtak-Hisar section) in District Hisar. The same was followed by the making of a declaration, vide notification No.S.O 1470(E) dated 19.08.2010 under Section 3(D)(1) of the said Act of 1956.

5. Respondent No.2 announced award No.1/H dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) under Section 3G of the said Act of 1956, for quantification of market value of the above said lands of the petitioners, at abysmally low rates of Rs.25 lacs per acre for all kinds of lands, by failing to award any of the statutory benefits on the lines, akin to Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act of 1894, on the dictum of the judgment rendered in ‘M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings V. Union Of India and Others reported in 2011 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 375, w