CWP No.9460 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9460 of 1987 Date of decision: 16.1.2009 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for Ludhiana Improvement Trust. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust says that this petition is covered by order passed on 14.1.2009 in CWP No. 5985 of 1986, wherein following the earlier judgment of this Court dated 16.5.2006 in CWP No. 4890 of 1986 (Prem Gupta v. Improvement Trust and another), land owners were held entitled to compensation of Rs.39/- per square yard, solatium at the rate of 30% per annum and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the second year. It was also held that additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) was not admissible. However, he submitted that compensation awarded therein was excessive and grant of uniform rate was not justified in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7025 of 1996 (Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal and another), reported in 1996 (9) SCC 188. We do not find any merit in this submission. Judgment in Prem Gupta's case supra was rendered after hearing all the parties, including the Advocate General for the Improvement Trust and considering the issue CWP No.9460 of 1987 2 whether belting principle should be applied. It was held that the entire land covered by the notification had similar potential. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal's case (supra) was in respect of different acquisition and minimum rate, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was Rs.50/- per square yard. In the present case rate awarded is Rs.39/- per square yard. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved award of uniform rate irrespective of category of land involved therein on the ground that the Tribunal had rightly made blocks as per difference in location, it was not laid down that separate blocks are always justified. Whether or not compensation should be awarded at a uniform rate depends on the location of land and other circumstances. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mirza Nausherwan Khan andanotehr v. The Collector (Land Acquisition) Hyderabad, AIR 1974 SC 2247, para 8, Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, v. Smt. L.Kamalamma (dead) by Lrs. And others, AIR 1998 SC 781, para 7 and Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others, 2005 (12) SCC 564, para 15. Since the present case relates to same acquisition, this petition is disposed of in terms of earlier judgment of this Court in Prem Chand's case (supra). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 16.1.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE