COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 M/s Mor Polutries through its partner Sh. Raj Kumar and another .... Petitioners Versus Sh. S.C. Chaudhary and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Batta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) On August 17, 2010, a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of CWP No.6357 of 2010 had issued the following directions:- “We make it very clear that as and when the Collector receives intimation regarding assessment of compensation, he shall issue a notice to the petitioners. The petitioners then shall raise claims regarding compensation of loss of business etc., before the Collector. The Collector shall then pass a speaking order and decide the claims of the petitioners. The petitioners shall then be at liberty, if not satisfied, to raise their COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: grievance by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act.” 2. According to the aforesaid directions, the Collector on receipt of intimation regarding assessment of compensation was to issue a notice to the petitioners who were then to raise claims regarding compensation for the loss of their business, etc. Thereupon, the Collector was to pass a speaking order to decide the same. It was further directed that the petitioners were at liberty, if not satisfied that sufficient compensation is paid, to file an application under Section 18 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said directions have not been complied with. 3. Upon notice issued to the respondents, separates replies have been filed on behalf of Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. It has been inter alia stated in the replies that order dated 17.08.2010 passed by this Court has been fully complied with. It reads as under:- “The L.A.C., Jind announced the award dated 22.12.2010 by passing a speaking order of even date. In the speaking order dated 22.12.2010 the L.A.C. Jind clearly mentioned that he has gone through the detail of description of item No.1 to 9 of assessment report of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana (PWD, B & R) dated 30.11.2010 and found that all the loss has been assessed in details in the assessment report. So, the supplementary amount of Rs.4054880 along with solatium @ 60% COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: instead of normal 30% has been awarded. In the award the L.A.C. Jind has also mentioned that the petitioner has also filed the reference U/s 18 of the L.A. Act for the loss of M/s Mor Hatcheries and M/s Mor Poultries on 06.01.2010 much prior to the announcement of the award dated 22.12.2010 for their claims. Moreover petitioners again filed the Section 18 reference against additional award dated 22.12.2010 and the same already stood referred to Ld. Sessions Judge, Jind. So, in view of the above submission, it clearly establish that the respondent has fully complied the order of this Hon'ble High Court dated 17.08.2010 passed in CWP No.6357 of 2010, and no wrong averments were made (as alleged by the petitioner) in the reply filed by the respondent in CWP No.6357/2010 in which it was averred that due process of other claims of the petitioner is in progress. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 17.08.2010 has also given the liberty to the petitioner, to raise their grievances by filing an application U/s 18 of the L.A. Act, if not satisfied with the order of the L.A.C. regarding compensation. The petitioners have already filed application U/s 18 of the L.A. Act after announcement of award dated 22.12.2010 and COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: same stood referred to the Ld. Sessions Judge, Jind.” 4. In view of the above, no further action is called for in the present petition. Same stands disposed of. 5. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the legal remedies, in accordance with law, if any grievance still subsists. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 19, 2011 sukhpreet COCP No.1840 of 2011 (O & M) ::5::