CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Dev Raj Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CWP No.9313 of 1999(O&M) Kanwal Raj Puri and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CWP No.9314 of 1999(O&M) Ashok Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CWP No.9315 of 1999(O&M) Krishan Kumar Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CWP No.9316 of 1999(O&M) Smt. Asha Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 2 Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Tiwana and Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate for Improvement Trust, Batala. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This judgment shall dispose of five writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.9312 to 9316 of 1999 as all these have been filed by the land owners for enhancement of compensation claiming that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is inadequate. The State Government, Local Government Department, Punjab, vide its notification No.2-A2-USLG(1)-79/1340 dated 6.1.1979 notified under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 sanctioned a development scheme for an area measuring 74.52 acres known as “Shastri Nagar, Batala” framed by the Batala Improvement Trust, Batala under Section 24 read with section 20(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The said scheme was first published under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 on 24.12.1975 which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further proceedings were started on 3.2.1979 and notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were issued to the interested persons requiring them to state the nature of their respective claims in the land and amount of compensation for such interest and their objections, if any, to the measurements under Section 8 of the Act. The land owners who filed their claims put in their objections stating in a nut-shell that the land in question has a potential value because of it being in the city itself and that they are entitled to compensation of land @ `15,000/- per marla as well as solatium etc. On the other hand, the Chairman/Administrator of CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 3 Improvement Trust, Batala suggested the market value of the land @ ` 200/- per marla. The Trust Engineer of Improvement Trust, Batala who was examined by the Land Acquisition Collector, stated that in the Trust Scheme known as Radha Kishan Nagar, compensation @ ` 215/- per marla for levelled land was awarded and there was a difference of only one year between the two schemes and nothing materially had changed vis-a-vis rates of land during this period. The Land Acquisition Collector also visited the spot and found that the land under acquisition was primarily agricultural and major area was under cultivation. The claimants/land owners also submitted six sale transactions in support of their claim but the Land Acquisition Collector ignored these transactions on the ground that these transactions were far fetched as regards the dates of transactions were concerned. The District Collector, Gurdaspur was also requested to supply the market rates who vide his letter dated 17.2.1981 suggested a flat rate of ` 500/- per marla. The said rate was reiterated by the District Collector confirming that the rates were arrived at, keeping in view, potentiality of the land. The Batala Improvement Trust collected 67 sale transactions according to which the average market price was worked out at ` 150/- per marla. The Land Acquisition Collector relied upon a sale transaction which was nearer to the material date and in which the land was transacted for approximately at ` 800/- per marla. After allowing the deduction at 50% and thereafter, giving 25% increase for the potentiality of the land and also relying upon an order dated 23.9.1981 of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in Reference No.21 of 1977, namely, Radha Kishan Nagar (which was quite near to the land in question), assessed at ` 500/- per marla as market value of the land in dispute. Solatium @ 15% on the aforesaid compensation was also granted by the Land Acquisition Collector vide his CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 4 award dated 18.8.1982. Aggrieved from the aforesaid grant of compensation, the claimants/land owners filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the Tribunal. It was submitted by the claimants that the material evidence was ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Collector had erred in assessing and awarding compensation for the land under reference as agriculture land, because the land in question was situated within the heart of the city and had a great potentiality. The Tribunal after discussing the evidence produced on the file and hearing the arguments of the respective parties, enhanced the compensation of land by assessing the market value of the acquired land at ` 1000/- per marla. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read thus: “Now adverting to the facts of this case, it has come in evidence that the land in dispute is situated on the main G.T. Road Amritsar-Pathankot on one side, Jalandhar to Batala on the other side. Batala to Kahnuwan on the third side and link road Batala-Kahnuwan road to Jalandhar-Batala road abutting the Nala which abuts Saint Fransic School and other commercial establishments. It has also come in evidence as referred to above that the land in dispute is situated just near the bus stand which is opposite to the police station, Civil Courts and the Tehsil Complex. PW-1 Sat Pal, PW-2 Pritam Lal Patwari, RW-2 Kapoor Singh and RW-3 Girdhari Lal have also admitted that the land in dispute is in the centre of the City. There is also a power house near the acquired land and the civil hospital is at a distance of not more than 800 Karams. Therefore, all the aforesaid facts have to be taken into consideration while considering the potential value of the property for determining the market value of the land. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence and that the fact that the acquired land in CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 5 dispute is just abutting the land as acquired in the judgment Ex.PK and that no belting system and fixing different rate of value for the land in dispute is justified than that of price fixed of land referred in the order, copy of which is Ex.PK dated 29.9.1986 passed by the President Batala Improvement Trust Tribunal, Gurdaspur, in the case Iqbal Kaur v. Improvement Trust and the order passed by our own Hon'ble High Court in civil writ petition No.7336 of 1987 and of 7175 of 1987, Major Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 11.2.1992 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the market value of the property acquired is considered as ` 1000/- per marla and I also determine the price of land in dispute as ` 1000/- per marla. Therefore, I decide this issue in favour of the claimants-petitioners and against the respondents.” While disposing of the land references vide award dated 30.10.1998, the Tribunal also observed as under, regarding payment of statutory benefits to the claimants besides the compensation:- “The aforesaid Principle of law makes it clear that the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) will be operative prospectively and the petitioners are entitled to the interest and all other benefits available u/s 23(1-A) of the Act. Therefore, all these petitioners are awarded the market price of the land actually acquired and taken into possession by the respondent Improvement Trust at the rate of ` 1000/- per marla. The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to 30% solatium on account of compulsory acquisition on the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to the interest in view of the amended provisions of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from taking possession of the land actually acquired and taken into possession till realisation.” Still not satisfied, the petitioners in these five writ petitions have approached this Court for further enhancement of compensation. CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 6 It may also be relevant to state that subsequently on the application filed by the land owners, the Tribunal passed orders dated 17.10.2002 and 2.3.2006, which are under challenge in CWP Nos.9600, 9599, 10216, 10217, 10218, 10241, 10274 of 2006, are pending before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred at law by ignoring the potentiality of the land in dispute while determining the compensation @ ` 1000/- per marla after relying upon award dated 29.9.1986 (Ex.PK) passed by the President Batala Improvement Trust, Tribunal, Gurdaspur in the case of Iqbal Kaur v. Improvement Trust Batala and others known as Leakwala Tank Scheme as land in dispute has much more potentiality than the land under acquisition in Leakwala Tank Scheme which is clear from the location of two schemes as depicted in the Site Plan Annexure P-1. It was further argued on behalf of the claimants that the Tribunal erred at law while ignoring the sale instances placed on record by the petitioners only on the ground that the certified copies of the sale deeds cannot be relied upon unless the vendor/vendee was examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer versus Narasaiah AIR 2001 SC 117 to contend that the certified copies of the sale instances are per se admissible and there was no need to examine the witnesses to prove these instances and therefore, these sale instances should be considered. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the claimants that in any case, notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 in the case of Leakwala Tank Scheme was issued on 28.7.1974 whereas in the instant case, the relevant date i.e. notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 7 was 24.12.1975 and thus, in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants were entitled to at least enhancement in compensation for the said period keeping in view the future potentiality and increase in prices. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that the compensation has already been assessed at a higher rate and the same cannot be further enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondent-Trust has also disputed the argument of the claimants/petitioners that the land in question has better potentiality than the land acquired under Leakwala Tank Scheme and has prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute with the proposition of law to the effect that certified copies of the sale instances produced on record are per se admissible under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same could not have been ignored for non-examination of vendor/vendee of the aforesaid sale instances. However, it is important to note that the claimant-petitioners have not produced any evidence on record regarding the location of these sale instances on the basis of which it could be examined as to whether these sale instances were comparable and relevant to determine the market value of the land in question. Even before this Court, no effort has been made by the petitioners to place on record any evidence to depict the location of the land under these sale instances and the land in question. It is well settled that for a sale instance to be considered as a comparable sale, it is essential that it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired and it possesses similar advantages. Thus, ignoring of the sale instances produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal is of no consequence. CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 8 The further argument of the petitioners that land in dispute is better situated and has a better potentiality than the land under acquisition in Scheme known as Leakwala Tank Scheme is also without any merit. A perusal of the Site Plan Annexure P-1 on which the petitioners have placed reliance clearly depicts that the land under Leakwala Tank Scheme is touching the roads on all sides and is abutting the city chowk. It has come on record that even the bank of Nala on one side of the land under Leakwala Scheme has a metalled road. Annexure P-6 is the award dated 29.9.1986 (Ex.PK). A perusal of this award clearly shows that the land under this Scheme was in the heart of the town and surrounded by buildings and has great potentiality for being used for a commercial purpose. On the other hand, the land in question though a part of it abuts on Amritsar-Pathankot National Highway road but the fact remains that a major portion of the land is away from the said road. Moreover, the petitioners have not disputed the fact that at the time of acquisition, the land in question was being used mainly for agricultural purpose and it is well settled that value of the land has to be determined according to use to which the land was put on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Saraswati Devi and others v. U.P. Government and another AIR 1992 SC 1620. It has also come on record that the other schemes known as Leakwala Scheme and Radha Kishan Nagar Scheme were acquired for commercial purpose whereas land in dispute was acquired for a different purpose i.e. residential colony. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record, even if on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to increase in compensation after relying upon the Award Ex.PK i.e. Leakwala Tank Scheme, the determination of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with for the simple reason that the land CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 9 under acquisition in Leakwalal Tank Scheme had much better potentiality than the scheme in hand. It is well settled that value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available on record and without indulging in any figment of imagination. The petitioners have not shown from evidence that there was rising trend in the prices between the dates of the acquisition in question and the Leakwala Tank Scheme. Thus, there is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the documents Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-9 and has submitted that now the respondent- Trust is selling the land in dispute at a very exorbitant rate and thus, the compensation awarded should be enhanced. A Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ram Singh and others v. Punjab State now Haryana State AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 205 has authoritatively laid down that potential value of the land acquired at the time of notification under Section 4(1) is to be taken into account and the advantages due to scheme for which it is acquired are not to be taken into account. For the aforesaid reasoning, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. The High Court is to only see whether findings of the Tribunal are justifiable on the evidence placed before it and whether settled legal principles of law in determining compensation were taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the award of the Tribunal is unsustainable. It may also be relevant to mention that we are not giving any opinion on the subsequent orders passed by the Tribunal on 17.10.2002 CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 10 and 2.3.2006 modifying the award and the same shall be subject to the decision in CWP Nos.9600, 9599, 10216, 10217, 10218, 10241, 10274 of 2006 which are stated to be pending before this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned award by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 20, 2011 ps CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9313 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Kanwal Raj Puri and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Tiwana and Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate for Improvement Trust, Batala. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.9312 of 1999 (Dev Raj Puri Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 20, 2011 ps CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9314 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Ashok Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Tiwana and Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate for Improvement Trust, Batala. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.9312 of 1999 (Dev Raj Puri Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 20, 2011 ps CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9315 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Krishan Kumar Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Tiwana and Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate for Improvement Trust, Batala. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.9312 of 1999 (Dev Raj Puri Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 20, 2011 ps CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9316 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Smt. Asha Puri ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others ......Respondent(s) ` CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Tiwana and Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Parveen Goel, Advocate for Improvement Trust, Batala. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.9312 of 1999 (Dev Raj Puri Versus The Improvement Trust Batala and others). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE May 20, 2011 ps CWP No.9312 of 1999(O&M) 15