C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 Date of Decision : 10.1.2008 Dr.Karnail Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Present : Ms.Simran Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhbir Mattewal, Advocate for the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. CWP No.5803 of 1985 Lt.Col.Hari Singh Grewal ....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .. Present : None for the petitioner. Mr.Sukhbir Mattewal, Advocate for Ludhiana Improvement Trust. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA .. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.11 of 1986 and 5803 of 1985, as they arise from common proceedings of acquisition and impugn the same award. On 11.11.1963, the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, published a notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') proposing to acquire 3 acres of land for a development scheme (titled as “Development Scheme Gill Road Market”). The development scheme was sanctioned by the State Government on 19.10.1966, by publication of a notification under Section 42 of the Act. The land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, thereafter, C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 2 passed an award and granted compensation @ Rs.80/- per Biswansi for 4 bighas 2 biswas and 2 Biswansi, at the rate of Rs.40/- per Biswansi for 2 Biswas and 11 Biswansis. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned assessment, the petitioners filed a reference petition, which was referred to the Tribunal. By its award dated 17.10.1973, the Land Acquisition Tribunal maintained the market value fixed by the Collector but ordered the grant of 15% solatium. The petitioners impugned the aforementioned award by filing CWP No.3844 of 1974. By order dated 6.10.1982, the Tribunal's award was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal, to make a fresh assessment of the compensation after considering Exs.P-1 and P-3. After remand, the learned Tribunal reassessed compensation and by way of award dated 28.8.1985, enhanced the compensation to Rs.40/- per sq.yard by placing reliance upon the sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-3 and awarded solatium @ 15% over and above the market value besides interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal committed an error, while assessing compensation. The Tribunal construed the order of remand as a direction to reconsider the sale deeds Ex.P-1 and P-3 alone and, therefore, did not take into consideration the sale deed Ex. P-2. It is submitted that its failure to consider the sale deed Ex.P-2, renders the award illegal. It is also argued that if Exs.P-1 to P-3, which disclose a sale consideration of Rs.50/- Rs.99/- and Rs.70/- per sq.yard, respectively are taken into consideration, the market value, payable to the petitioners, would be far in excess of the market value determined by the Tribunal. It is further contended that as land, subject matter of these sale transactions is C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 3 situated opposite the acquired land, the learned Tribunal should have placed reliance on these sale instances and awarded compensation at a rate above the market value assessed. Another argument pressed into service by counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal erred while applying a 1/3rd cut to the market value disclosed by Ex.P-1. The acquired land is situated in a developed area and, therefore, no cut could have been imposed. The last argument advanced is that as the award was passed on 28.8.1985, solatium and interest, provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as amended,should have been awarded. Counsel for the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, on the other hand, submits that the learned Tribunal rightly relied upon Ex.P-1while assessing the market value as Rs.40/-. The total land acquired is 3 acres, whereas the sale transactions Ex.P-1 to P-3 measure 70-80 sq.yards respectively. It is submitted that as the land, subject matter of Exs.P-1 to P-3 do not reflect the correct market value of a large chunk of land, the learned Tribunal was justified in applying a 1/3rd cut to the sale consideration recorded in Ex.P-1. As regards the fact that the award does not make a reference to Ex.P-2, counsel for the Improvement Trust submits that the Tribunal need not necessarily made a reference to all sale transactions. It is, however, conceded that solatium and interest has to be paid in terms of the Land Acquisition Act as amended. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book as also the impugned award. I find no reason to interfere with the market value, as assessed by the learned Tribunal. After the Tribunal considered the evidence afresh C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 4 and upon a considered appraisal of the evidence on record, it placed reliance upon sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-3. In essence, the learned Tribunal placed reliance upon Ex.P-1 and awarded compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq.yard by applying a 1/3rd cut. As these sale deeds pertain to a small pieces of land, the learned Tribunal was justified in applying a 1/3rd cut to the market value. As regards the plea that the learned Tribunal did not place reliance on Ex.P-2, suffice it to say that the aforementioned irregularity would not detract from the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal. The mode and manner of assessment, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction, as would warrant interference, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Findings of fact as to the assessment of market value are affirmed. As regards the rate of solatium and interest, it has been conceded by counsel for the Improvement Trust that in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust V. Vasant Rao, AIR 2002 (S.C.) 3499, the provisions of Section 23(2) and Section 28 as amended by Act No.68 of 1984, would apply to acquisitions under the Act and as the Tribunal's award is dated 28.8.1985, the petitioners would be entitled to receive solatium and interest at the rates provided under the amended Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the market value assessed by the learned Tribunal is affirmed but the petitioners would, in addition, be entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value so determined, and interest thereon @ 9% for the first year and @ 15% p.a. thereafter for the period that amount remained unpaid. With the aforementioned modification,the present petitions are disposed of, with no order as to costs. C.W.P. No.11 of 1986 5 At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the present petition, Dr.Karnail Singh has passed away. The failure of the petitioner to implead the legal representatives would not have any effect upon the rights of the legal representatives, if any. 10.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE