✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 30 May 2008

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1122 of 2007M M KUMAR, SABINA

Case at a glance

Decided
30 May 2008
Bench
M M KUMAR, SABINA

Provisions considered

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondents. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. An affidavit of the Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Industries and Commerce, Chandigarh on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed in Court in support of the payments made to the petitioners, which includes the amount of 30% solatium, 12% additional market value on the amount of compensation as well as interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on delayed payment in pursuance to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 and Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211. A copy of the affidavit along with calculation CWP No. 1122 of 2007 -2- sheets have been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that there are certain errors in calculations and an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to file a representation to the respondents pointing out those errors. In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition. The petitioners may make a representation to the respondents by pointing out those errors within a period of two weeks under the Registered A.D.Cover. The Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Industries and Commerce, Chandigarh, who has filed the affidavit shall consider the representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. If something is still found due to the petitioners the same be disbursed to them within a period of one month thereafter. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE May30, 2008

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 May 2008. The bench was M M KUMAR, SABINA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1122 of 2007). ← Search more judgments