IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 Date of Decision : August 16, 2010. Iqbal Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its President, and others ..... Respondents C.W.P. No. 5721 of 1986 Iqbal Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its President, and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. J.S. Saggi, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 10 (in CWP No. 5722 of 1986). None for Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.. By this Order, we propose to decide two writ petitions, i.e., CWP No. 5722 of 1986 Iqbal Singh and another Versus The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its President and others, and CWP No. 5721 of 1986 Iqbal Singh and another Versus The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -2- its President and others, as both these writ petitions arise out of Award dated 04.06.1986, passed by the President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, enhancing the compensation as granted by the Land Acquisition Collector and awarding compensation of acquired land of the petitioners immediately abutting the metalled road upto the depth of 10 karams @ Rs. 235 per sq. yd. and rest of the acquired land @ 156 per sq. yd. alongwith other statutory benefits. These writ petitions have been filed claiming further enhancement of compensation by the petitioners. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 5722 of 1986. Vide notification published on 08.07.1975 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Improvement Act’), Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, sought to acquire land of the petitioners measuring approximately 6 acres, all situated within the municipal limits of Ludhiana, for execution of 6 acres development scheme. The State Government accorded sanction to this scheme and notification under Section 42 of the Improvement Act was published on 10.01.1977. The land of the petitioners was also covered by the aforesaid two notifications. The Land Acquisition Collector, classifying the acquired land of the petitioners as one consolidated block, and awarded compensation @ Rs. 320/- per biswansi, i.e., Rs. 42.66 per sq. yd. besides 15 % solatium. The petitioners being not satisfied with the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the petitioners C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -3- claimed Rs. 500 per sq. yd. The petitioners as well as Improvement Trust led their respective evidence before the Tribunal, who primarily relying on earlier Award dated 22.05.1985, passed in reference of Har Lal Versus Improvement Trust and others, copy whereof was Ex.A-12 before the Tribunal, and awarded same compensation as the land of the petitioners was also a part of the same acquisition. It is this Award dated 04.06.1986 (Annexure-P-3) of the Tribunal, which is under challenge, wherein the petitioners are claiming enhancement of compensation. Counsel for the petitioners contends that while dealing with the reference preferred by Har Lal, the Tribunal had relied upon a sale deed dated 15.07.1974, wherein sale consideration was Rs. 52,000/-. As only Rs. 47,000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar and Har Lal failed to produce the receipt of Rs. 5,000/-, the Tribunal had taken land to have been sold for Rs. 47,000/-, leading to the calculation of price of land to be Rs. 235 per sq. yd. He contends that in reference before the Tribunal in the case of the petitioners, they produced certified copy of sale deed dated 15.07.1974 as Ex.A-4, wherein it was mentioned that the land was sold for Rs. 52,000/-, but Rs. 47,000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar. Shri Karam Singh appeared as AW-5, who is the purchaser of the said land, produced receipt of Rs. 5,000/- (Ex.A-5), which was the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 52,000/-, for which land was bought by him. He on this basis contends that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the price of land at Rs. 235/- per sq. yd., while it should have been Rs. 260/- per sq. yd. As the petitioners were able to prove before the Tribunal that the land, vide sale deed Ex.A-4 dated 15.07.1974, was sold for Rs. 52,000/-, which would be @ Rs. 260/- per sq. yd. He on this basis contends that the Tribunal should have assessed the rate of the land at Rs. 260/- per sq. yd. C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -4- He further contends that the Tribunal has resorted to belting, which is not justified for the reason that the land of the petitioners fall within the municipal limits. The area around the land is a developed area. The land is located along the Link Road near the habitation of Model Town, Atam Nagar, Abdullapur. Besides Preet Place Cinema, and other commercial establishments are also nearby on the Link Road. It has unique potential of being used for commercial purposes and therefore, resort to belting by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Punjab, Versus Land Acquisition Tribunal, Kapurthala, and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) Supreme Court Cases 650, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmira Singh and others Versus Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana, (CWP No. 5787 of 1987, decided on 23.05.2006). He contends that since the Tribunal has itself relied upon the sale instance dated 15.07.1974 (Ex.A-4) to assess the value of land and notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Act was published on 08.07.1975, the petitioners would be entitled to increase of 12% on the face value as fixed under the sale instance, which has been accepted by the Tribunal. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash (D) by LRs and another Versus Union of India and another, Vol. CXXXVIII-(2004-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 727. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the site plan (Annexure-P-1), which was Ex.A-3 before the Tribunal. He on this basis prays that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, be enhanced. Despite service, none has chosen to appear on behalf of Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, in both the cases. C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -5- We have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned Award dated 04.06.1986 (Annexure-P- 3) passed by the Tribunal indeed shows that the Tribunal, while deciding reference of the petitioners, has relied upon the Award dated 22.05.1985 (Annexure-P-2), passed in reference case of Har Lal Versus Improvement Trust Ludhiana, which pertains to the same acquisition as in the case of the petitioners. In the said Award, reliance was placed on the sale deed dated 15.07.1974, wherein it was stated that the land has been sold for Rs. 52,000/-. As the claimant in the said reference failed to produce any proof of payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the vendor, the Tribunal had taken the land to be sold for Rs. 47,000/- as the same found mentioned in the sale deed as the amount having been handed over to the vendee at the time of registration of said sale deed. Accordingly, the price of the land was worked out at Rs. 235/- per sq. yd. The said land was situated on the Link Road and accordingly, the Tribunal assessed the rate of the land upto depth of 10 karams at Rs. 235 per sq. yd., while for rest of the land, 1/3rd cut was imposed and the rate was rounded off at Rs. 156/- per sq. yd. In the present case, not only petitioners proved the sale deed dated 15.07.1974 (Ex.A-4) by producing the certified copy thereof, but were also able to produce the vendee, namely, Karam Singh, who appeared as AW- 5. He produced receipt of Rs. 5,000/- (Ex.A-5) and, thus, the petitioners were able to prove before the Tribunal that the actual price of land as mentioned in sale deed was Rs. 52,000/-, which come out to be Rs. 260/- per sq. yd., therefore, rate of land would be Rs. 260 per sq. yd. The Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the receipt Ex.A-5. C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -6- The evidence, which has been produced before the Tribunal, has been considered in para-11 of the Award, it has held as follow :- “11. About the adequacy of the compensation it transpires that there is no dispute between the parties that the land is located along the main Link Road and just opposite to the metalled road and habitation of Model Town, Ludhiana. It also transpires that some commercial establishments were also existing along the Link Road and just opposite to the acquired land of the petitioners. Preet Place Cinema also touches the acquired land on one side while the Ferozepur Ludhiana railway track abuts this land on the other side. Under these circumstances it can be well said that this land has unique situation for being used for commercial purposes. The land immediately abutting the said metalled road would certainly have better situation potential as it can be used for commercial purpose without providing any roads etc. No doubt in the revenue record canal minor used to run in between the Link Road and the acquired land of the petitioners, but it has been covered by the link road much prior to the acquisition of the land in dispute as is apparent from the copies Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 of the letters of the Executive Engineer, Sidhwan Division, Ludhiana and of the different share holders to the Chief Minister Punjab respectively got proved from Bakshi Ram AW7, Accounts clerk of the office of the Executive Engineer, Sidhwan Division, Ludhiana. Under these circumstances there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Trust that the acquired land was not abutting the said metalled road.” It is, thus, apparent that the land in question has great potential. The evidence further shows that area around the land is developed and it is also not in dispute that the land of the petitioners fall within the municipal limits of Ludhiana. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashmira Singh (supra), relying upon another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -7- case of The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar Versus Vidya Suri (Smt.) and others, (2006-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 153, has held that when the entire acquired land for the scheme was situated within the municipal limits and was located where all around it area was developed, the land owners were not to be treated differently for various parts of the acquired land. A perusal of the evidence on record as also site plan clearly depicts development around the land of the petitioners. The land is situated on the Link Road, which is metalled road around which various commercial establishments are present as also residential colonies and houses, therefore, we do not see any justification for resorting to belting, while granting compensation for the land. Even the Collector granted compensation at a flat rate of the land of the petitioners treating it to be a compact block. The land being within the municipal limits with enormous potential value deserves and is granted a uniform rate of compensation. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurthala Improvement Trust (supra), has held that when the plan indicates that the land is situated in developed area resort to belting would not be justified. Accordingly, award of the Tribunal to that extent deserves to be set aside and the petitioners are held entitled to uniform rate of compensation for their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 260 per. sq. yd. The Tribunal has erred in not granting increase in value of the land as the sale deed was of 15.07.1974, whereas notice under Section 36 of the Improvement Act was issued on 08.07.1975. Thus, the difference between the two dates is of one year. The Tribunal should have worked out fair market value of land in question by escalating the price @ 10% per annum. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash (supra), has in para-11 considered this aspect and come to a conclusion that 10% per annum C.W.P. No. 5722 of 1986 etc. -8- for the year 1975 would be reasonable increase to arrive at a fair market value. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to 10% increase on the market value, as the sale deed is of the year 1974, whereas the acquisition is of the year 1975. When the same is added to the rate of land, i.e., Rs. 260 per sq. yd., the same comes to Rs. 286/- per sq. yd. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to compensation at uniform rate of Rs. 286/- per sq. yd. They shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits as has been granted by the Tribunal, vide its Award dated 04.06.1986. At this stage, Mr. R.L. Batta, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for respondents No. 4 to 10 in CWP No. 5722 of 1986, contends that the petitioners are descendants of Santokh Singh, who was also predecessor- in-interest of Iqbal Singh and Mel Kaur, petitioners in these writ petitions, therefore, they are also entitled to the same benefit. Counsel for the petitioners very fairly states that he has no objection, if the same benefit, as has been granted to the petitioner, is extended to respondents No. 4 to 10. Accordingly, it is held that respondents No. 4 to 10 shall also be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in these writ petitions. A photocopy of this Order be placed on the file of connected case. (JASBIR SINGH) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE JUDGE August 16, 2010. sjks.