IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 & other connected cases being CWP Nos.1957 and 1958 of 1985, CWP Nos.33, 34, 35, 1598, 1836, 2098, 2099, 3621, 4645, 4719, 5250, 5992, 5993, 5994, 6704, 6890, 6902 and 6903 of 1986, CWP Nos.583, 631, 2171, 5694, 5695, 5696, 1180 & 7467 of 1987, CWP Nos.1069, 4852, 7151, 7152, 7155, 7188, 7201 and 11697 of 1988, CWP Nos.5170 and 13861 of 1989, CWP Nos.2177, 2186, 2190, 2196, 2291, 2294, 2297, 2322, 2323, 5539, 5552, 5598, 5607 of 1990 Date of decision: 27.4.2009 Waryam Singh and others. -----Petitioners Vs. President, Land Acquisition Tribunal etc. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate in CWP Nos.32 to 35 of 1986 and CWP No.5250 of 1986 and for respondents No.2-11, 14 & 15 in CWP No.2291 of 1990 Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate in CWP Nos.1598, 6902, 6903 6704 of 1986, CWP No.1180 & 2171 of 1987, CWP Nos. 1069, 4852, 7151, 7152, 7155 and 7201 of 1988 and CWP No. 13861 of 1989 for the petitioners, Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate in CWP Nos.2098 and 2099 of 1986 for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate in CWP No.11697 of 1988 for the petitioners, Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate in CWP Nos.3621, 5992, 5993, 5994 and 6890 of 1986 and CWP Nos.631 of 1987 for petitioners, Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate in CWP Nos.5694 to 5696 of 1987 and CWP No.7188 of 1988 for the petitioners, Mr. P.S. Kang, Advocate in CWP No.4719 of 1986 for the petitioners, Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate in CWP No.4852 of 1988 for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate Mr. R.S. Riar, Advocate and Mr. C.M. Sharma, Advocate for respondents/Improvement Trusts. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: 1. This order will dispose of 52 writ petitions arising out of same acquisition proceedings. Thirteen petitions being CWP Nos.2177, 2186, 2190, 2196, 2291, 2294, 2297, 2322, 2323, 5539, 5552, 5598, 5607 of 1990 have been filed by the Improvement Trust, confined to the question of applicability of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), as amended vide Act No.68 of 1984. The remaining 39 petitions have been filed by the land owners, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 vide notification dated 8.6.1973 followed by notification dated 26.7.1974 under Section 42 of the said Act. The Collector determined compensation by separate awards dated 31.10.1974 of Village Dugri, dated 1.8.1975 of Village Jawadi, dated 27.7.1976 of Village Burara and dated 5.8.1977 of Villages Gill-1 and Gill-2. The purpose of acquisition was development of 400 acres land Model Town Extension Scheme Part II, Ludhiana. The Scheme covered five villages. 3. The Collector awarded minimum of Rs.34 per Biswansi (less than Rs.5 per square yard) and maximum of Rs.150 per Biswansi (i.e. about Rs.20/- per square yard). The difference in the rates awarded was either on account of location vis-à-vis the 2 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 Pakhowal or Dugri Road or land being levelled or low lying. On reference, the Tribunal by awards dated May 22, 1985 or other awards of different dates around the same date enhanced the compensation to the minimum of Rs.13.33 per square yard (Rs.100 per Biswansi) for low lying land and maximum of Rs.66 per square yard which was for land touching Pakhowal Road upto depth of 15 Karams. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. Hemant Sarin appearing in CWP Nos.32 to 35 of 1986 and CWP No.5250 of 1986 submitted that there was patent error in the impugned award. Compensation @ Rs.20/- per square yard for levelled land and Rs.13.33/- per square yard for low lying land in Village Burara was inadequate. Referring to para 16 of the award of the Tribunal, it was submitted that the sale deed Ex.A-7 dated 18.7.1972, which was part of the acquired land, was for Rs.33/- per square yard. Sale deed Ex.A-8 dated 23.5.1972 and Sale deed Ex.A-9 dated 12.4.1972, which were also part of acquired land, were for Rs.30 per square yard. Almost same was the position of sale deeds Ex.A-11 and Ex.A-12. Purchaser in Ex.A-11 Major Teja Singh is the petitioner in CWP No.35 of 1986 for the very land which was purchased by him and thus, he could not have been awarded lower than the rate at which he purchased the land one year prior to the acquisition i.e. @ Rs.32 per square yard. The Collector applied 1/3rd cut on the said value and awarded Rs.20/- per square yard. He further pointed out that in CWP No.1180 of 1987, relating to Village Jawadi, award of the Tribunal dated 4.8.1986 for Rs.66/- per 3 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 square yard for land touching Pakhowal Road upto depth of 15 Karams was upheld. He has produced a copy of award dated 29.4.1985 of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana in Land Acquisition Case No.67 of 1977 Prem Nath v. The Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. The findings in the said award are as under:- “29. However, regarding the land of the petitioners forming part of Khasra No.300, which abuts on the Pakhwal Road upto the extent of 15 feet, it transpires that it has certainly better situation potential of being used for construction of shops etc. Keeping in view that the depth of modern commercial establishment can go upto the extent of 15 karams from the main road, it transpires that the compensation of this land abutting the main road has to be assessed by working out average price of the land subject matter of sale deeds, Ex.P7 and P9, because the acquired land is located in between and almost at the same distance from the land subject matter of these two sale deeds and on the same road i.e. Pakhwal road. The per square yard of sale price of Ex.P7 is Rs.100/- while that of Ex.P9 is Rs.32/-. Thus, the average price of these two sale deeds would work out to Rs.55/- per sq. yard. So, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.66/- per square yard and award to that effect is given in favour of the petitioners.” 6. He also referred to para 15 of the impugned award, wherein location of the acquired land has been noted as under:- “.....there is no dispute between the parties that the acquired land is located between the habitation of Model Town, Sidhwan Canal, Ludhiana-Dugri railway line and Ludhiana-Ferozepore Railway Track. The land of Village Jawadi including that of Burara fall near Sidhwan Canal 4 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 then the land of village Dugri, which falls towards Model Town side.” 7. In view of above finding on the location, it was submitted that the land had potential for residential purposes and in such a situation, a flat rate should have been awarded. 8. Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.1598 of 1986, CWP No.1180 of 1987 and CWP Nos.1069 and 13861 of 1989 mainly adopted the arguments of Mr. Sarin, with regard to contention that the compensation should have been awarded @ Rs.66/- per square yard in view of award of the Tribunal in Prem Nath (supra). 9. Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in CWP Nos.2098 and 2099 of 1986 referred to paras 8, 10 and 11 of the award of the Tribunal in CWP No.2098 of 1986, recording the contention that compensation should have been at Rs.148/- per square yard on the basis of Ex.A-6, A-7 and A-8 in that case. The said instances were wrongly rejected on the ground that the same related to inhabited area. 10. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, learned counsel for the Improvement Trust submitted that in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Paripooranan v. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 1012, the provision of Section 23 (1A) of the Act could not be applied as the award of the Collector, in the present case, was prior to 30.4.1982. Opposing the submission for enhancement of compensation, he submitted that there was no scope for interference 5 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 with the award of the Tribunal. The writ proceedings could not be treated at par with appeal and interference has to be confined to error patent on the face of it. Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible. He submitted that there is every justification for belting of land as levelled or low lying land and based on location abutting the road and far away from road and also based on location of different villages. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly imposed cut of 1/3rd having regard to the fact that the land covered by the sale deed was a small piece of land, which could not be directly applied to evaluation of large track of land. He further referred to judgment of this Court dated 23.5.2006 in C.W.P. No.5787 of 1987 Kashmira Singh and others v. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana and others, wherein for acquisition in pursuance of notification dated 2.7.1976 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for “475 Acres Development Scheme”, compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.20/- per square yard. That Scheme included village Jawadi. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.600/- per marla upto depth of 50 karams from the Pakhowal Road, Rs.377/- per marla for remaining levelled land and Rs.262/- per marla for the low lying area, which was enhanced by this Court to Rs.20/- per square yard, at flat rate. Referring to the submissions of Mr. Kaushal, he submitted that the location of the sale instances, relied upon, was not established and thus, the said instances could not be treated to be comparable to the acquired land. Moreover, the said instances related to small pieces of land. He also distinguished the rate of Rs.66/- per square yard awarded in the award of Prem 6 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 Nath, referred to above, by submitting that one sale deed of Rs.100/- per square yard relied on in that case was an isolated instance and was wrongly clubbed with the overwhelming evidence of Rs.32/- per square yard and after taking average of Rs.66/- per square yard, no cut was imposed for the smallness of the area. It was also observed therein that the instance which fetched Rs.100/- per square yard, was not comparable instance being better located. 11. Learned counsel for the land owners distinguished the judgment in Kashmira Singh (supra), by submitting that though Village Jawadi was also involved, the location of “475 Acres Development Scheme” was beyond the canal and the said location was not comparable with the acquired land. The acquired land was better located and thus, more valuable. 12. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is sufficient evidence to show that market value of land ought to have been fixed @ Rs.32/- per square yard. There is no dispute about the entire land had potential for development, being within the municipal limits and otherwise located near the road and the canal as well as abadi of the village. The assessment had to be arrived at by taking broad view of the matter. The fact that for land touching the Pakhowal Road upto depth of 15 Karams, Rs.66/- per square yard have been awarded, which has not been challenged by the Improvement Trust, cannot altogether be ruled out, though we find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Improvement Trust that the said rate may not be comparable for the entire land. 7 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 The fact that at least one of the petitioners has himself paid Rs.32 per square yard for part of the acquired land is also significant. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the view that requirement of applying the cut for the passage, civil amenities etc. will be off set by the factor of lapse of time between the dates of sale instances and the date of acquisition and special locational potential. 14. No doubt, this Court does not sit in appeal over award of a Tribunal but in the present case, there is huge disparity in the rates awarded. We are conscious that belting is a proper method where there is difference in value of land on account of location or otherwise. In the present case, huge disparity merely on account of distance from road or on account of land being low lying cannot be justified. 15. We, accordingly, hold that the land owners will be entitled to flat rate of Rs.32/- per square yard as compensation for land beyond 15 Karams from Pakhowal road. They will not be entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act. We also make it clear that though the Improvement Trust will be entitled to adjust the additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act, if already paid, the Improvement Trust will not be entitled to effect recovery if the amount already paid is in excess of enhancement of compensation now allowed, having regard to practical considerations and also on account of about five years delay in filing of writ petitions by the Trust. The land owners will also be entitled to statutory benefits of interest and solatium. The awards of the Tribunal will stand modified, accordingly. 8 C.W.P. No.32 of 1986 16. The petitions are disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE April 27, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 9