Latest news with #TribhuvanDahiya
Indian Express
08-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
HC upholds landowners' right to enhanced compensation, trashes NHAI's plea
In a major relief to landowners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) Tuesday dismissed two petitions filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), which had challenged the payment of enhanced compensation, including an increased easement amount, for land acquired in Amritsar for a national highway project. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya ruled that once the landowners' easement rights had been acknowledged and compensation awarded, NHAI could not reopen the issue or deny enhanced benefits based on revised land rates. An easement refers to the right to use a portion of someone's land for a specific purpose, such as access or utilities, even though one does not own it. The court upheld earlier orders passed by the Executing Court in Amritsar and directed it to proceed with the landowners' execution applications without delay. The case concerns land acquired in village Verka for the construction of National Highway-15, with acquisition notifications issued in 2008 and 2009 under the National Highways Act, 1956. The competent authority had initially fixed compensation at Rs 9,292 per square yard in 2010, along with a 10% easement amount for affected landowners. After a long legal battle that included arbitration, objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and a High Court appeal, compensation was finally enhanced to Rs 26,000 per square yard in 2017. However, the NHAI later objected to the recalculated easement amount, prompting further litigation. Rejecting NHAI's challenge, Justice Dahiya quoted Section 3G(2) of the 1956 Act. 'The land owner whose right to easement has been affected by the acquisition of land shall be paid easement amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount of compensation… No doubt taking away of easement right has to be proved, but that has already been done by the landowners… which has been accepted by the petitioner/NHAI. There is no challenge to it to date.' He further dismissed NHAI's argument that the HC's 2017 order enhanced only the base compensation and not the easement amount. 'This is a misconceived argument… Violation of easement rights has already been established, and need not be proved again for enhanced compensation.' NHAI also attempted to invoke the doctrine of merger, arguing that the original award merged with the High Court's 2017 ruling and could no longer be enforced. The judge rejected this, stating: 'The argument is fallacious… The award granting easement amount was never set aside… It has instead been accepted and implemented by NHAI and they cannot now take a contradictory stand.' The court also cited a SC ruling in Tarsem Singh to clarify that compensation for easement rights is separate and payable if the infringement has been proven. Landowners' counsel, advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, argued that since NHAI had never challenged the 2010 award granting the easement amount, it had attained finality. Agreeing with this, the court noted that NHAI's failure to raise timely objections meant they were now barred from doing so.
Hindustan Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
DA case: HC defers Majithia's plea hearing for July 8
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday deferred hearing on the plea from Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia against arrest and remand in a disproportionate assets case for July 8. The bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya did not grant any interim relief to the SAD leader but directed Punjab advocate general Maninderjit Singh Bedi to seek instructions on the issues raised in the plea by the adjourned date. The bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya did not grant any interim relief to the SAD leader but directed Punjab advocate general Maninderjit Singh Bedi to seek instructions on the issues raised in the plea by the adjourned date. The court has not issued a formal notice on the plea. Majithia, arrested in the DA case, was sent to a seven-day vigilance remand by the Mohali court on June 26, which was extended by four days on July 2. The Punjab Vigilance Bureau on June 25 arrested Majithia in the DA case allegedly involving the laundering of ₹540 crore of 'drug money'. He had moved high court on July 1, calling the FIR and his arrest 'political witch-hunting and vendetta' for being a vocal critic of the current dispensation. 'The present petition…raises important questions of law and principle concerning abuse of criminal process, misuse of remand powers, and the right to fair investigation and liberty. The petitioner respectfully prays for appropriate reliefs, including quashing of the illegal remand order and appropriate directions to prevent further abuse of process,' his petition of July 1 read, wherein he had challenged seven-day remand. The prayer now has been modified and the July 2 order of extending his vigilance remand by four days has also been challenged. 'The remand application filed by the investigating agency lacked any concrete or urgent investigative ground and merely relied on broad, speculative allegations such as the petitioner's alleged influence, foreign connections, and general statements about the need to confront him with documents or digital devices,' the petition read. He had also submitted that the Supreme Court in its order on March 4, had refused custodial interrogation of the petitioner despite the same allegations being pressed before it via multiple affidavits filed by Punjab in a drugs-related FIR registered in 2021. The fresh FIR against Majithia stems from an ongoing investigation being conducted by a Punjab Police special investigation team into the 2021 drug case. In 2021, Majithia was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The action was taken on the basis of a 2018 report of the anti-drug Special Task Force. He spent over five months in Patiala Jail and walked out of prison in August 2022 after the high court granted him bail.
Hindustan Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
{Haryana} Extend OPS to KU staff hired on posts advertised before NPS rollout: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed Haryana government and Kurukshetra University (KU) to extend Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits to faculty members, who were recruited against the posts advertisement prior to implementation of new pension scheme (NPS). These employees were recruited between May and November 2006 pursuant to advertisements in 2005 and 2006, when KU Employees Pension Scheme 1997 (OPS) was in effect. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The high court bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also imposed a cost of ₹ 5 lakh on the government and the varsity for acting 'arbitrarily' and 'unreasonably' in the case of faculty members of KU. The petitioners, recruited as lecturers, were demanding restoration of OPS and quashing of July 2023 communication of the state government, whereby varsities were directed not to act on a May 2023 communication regarding inclusion of those employees under OPS, who were recruited against posts advertised prior to NPS notification. These employees were recruited between May and November 2006 pursuant to advertisements in 2005 and 2006, when KU Employees Pension Scheme 1997 (OPS) was in effect. Haryana introduced NPS with January 1, 2006 followed by the universities as well. In March 2023 Central government allowed OPS to the employees who were recruited against posts notified prior to implementation of NPS. Haryana also adopted the same in a May 2023 notification. However, in July 2023, a communication told varsities not to act on May 2023 notification—which effectively meant that such employees in universities would not get the benefit of OPS. It was in this background that these teachers had approached the high court. The court said that once the state government allowed the category of employees appointed against the posts advertised prior to the date of notification of NPS to go back to the old scheme by exercising an option, the same benefit was required to be extended to varsity employees also. The court termed the government decision 'unreasonable' and 'arbitrary exercise of power' while adding ' such an about-turn without any rationale smacks of high handedness on the government's part, which is deplorable and cannot be acceded to. In this constitutional scheme of things no executive authority can anoint to itself absolute power to act to or not to act at will, without mentioning any justifiable reason,' the court observed. The court also underlined that the university had an obligation to work for its employees welfare and it should have taken a step in that direction but appears to have 'abdicated the authority' and chosen to be a 'mute spectator'. The court 'censured' the governments conduct while observing 'if it suits the government these employees are brought under new pension scheme meant for its employees, if it does not, they are treated as aliens and even the benefits available to the government employees under the same scheme are denied on the specious plea of not receiving proposal from the university in this regard,' the court added while referring to the argument from the government that no proposal came from the university to grant these employees OPS. Now, the court has given two-weeks' time to complete the requisite formalities and has also given an extended deadline of eight weeks to implement the scheme. As of the fine imposed, ₹ 4 lakh are to be paid by the government and ₹ 1 lakh by the KU as litigation cost for five petitions filed by the employees.
