CWP No. 11238 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11238 of 2001 Date of decision: 14.5.2009 Mrs. Kaushalya Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Land Acquisition Tribunal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the respondents. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This order will dispose of CWP No. 8188 of 2001 filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust and CWP No. 11238 of 2001 filed by the land owners. Both the petitions arise out of the determination of compensation. 2. Proceedings for acquisition commenced vide notification dated 10.6.1975 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 followed by notification dated 22.12.1976 under Section 42 of the said Act. The Collector vide award dated 12.8.1977 determined compensation @ Rs.206/- per biswansi for low lying area and @ Rs.257/- per biswansi for the levelled area. On reference, the Tribunal, constituted under the said Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs.475/- per biswansi for the entire land. The same works out to about Rs. 63/- per sq. yard, as stated by the learned counsel for the land owners. 3. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence led by the parties. The CWP No. 11238 of 2001 2 land owners relied upon valuation reports to the effect that the market price of the land was Rs. 1,000/- per sq. yard or Rs. 450/- per sq. yard, sale deeds Exhibits A-15 to A-28 to claim that the market price was between Rs.75/- to Rs.150 per sq. yard and award dated 30.8.1985 awarding compensation ranging from Rs.50/- to Rs.107/- per sq. yard However, the Tribunal held that the main relevant evidence was award dated 26.8.1987 Exhibit AW11/7, wherein compensation @ Rs. 456.85 per biswansi was awarded for the entire land. The said award pertained to the land acquired in May 1976. It was observed that the present acquisition was by notification dated 22.12.1976, i.e., seven months after the earlier acquisition and on that account the land owners were entitled to enhancement of 4% over and above rate awarded by the award dated 26.8.1987 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In support of writ petition filed by the Improvement Trust, it was submitted that additional compensation of 12% was not admissible to the land owners, as the award of the Collector was dated 12.8.1977 i.e. prior to 30.4.1982, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Paripooran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that having regard to the lapse of period of seven months after the earlier award, enhancement should have been higher in view of the observations in the award itself that the prices of the land property were daily on the rise. He also submitted that valuation reports should have been relied upon. 6. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal wrongly took into account notification dated 22.12.1976 which was under Section 42 of the Act (at par CWP No. 11238 of 2001 3 with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and also submitted that the general observation that the prices are rising daily could not be a good ground for further enhancement, in the absence of specific evidence about the extent of rise in prices. He also submitted that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. 7. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded fair compensation after appreciating the evidence on record. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in absence of patent error of law or fact, determination of compensation by a statutory Tribunal, after appreciating evidence, is not open to interference. The evidence led by the parties has been duly discussed in the impugned award. The writ petition filed by the land owners for further enhancement of compensation is, thus, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. As regards the petition filed by the Improvement Trust, it is not disputed that the issue raised is covered by Judgment in K.S.Paripooran's case, supra, as the award is prior to 30.4.1982. The provision of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act was not applicable. The petition is allowed to that extent. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) May 14, 2009 JUDGE mk