IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11150 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Gagandeep and others …Petitioners Versus The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. M.M. M.M. M.M. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. 1. The award dated 22.12.2005 (P-1), passed by the President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), disposing of a number of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) including the one filed by the petitioners against the award dated 3.10.1973, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar Improvement Trust, is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners have prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to grant solatium at the rate of 30% on the CWP No. 11150 of 2007 (O&M) 2 entire amount of compensation instead of the enhanced amount of compensation together with prescribed statutory interest. They have also prayed for enhancement of compensation from `12/- per square yard to `100/- per square yard in respect of their acquired land. Still further it has been prayed that compensation be granted to them at the aforesaid rate in respect of ½ share out of 109 Kanals 17 Marlas and Khasra No. 107 measuring 2 Kanals 18 Marlas. 2. At the outset it is pertinent to notice that against the impugned award dated 22.12.2005, passed by the Tribunal, a number of writ petitions including CWP No. 7977 of 2006 (Dr. CWP No. 7977 of 2006 (Dr. CWP No. 7977 of 2006 (Dr. CWP No. 7977 of 2006 (Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh v. The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Jagdev Inder Singh v. The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Jagdev Inder Singh v. The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Jagdev Inder Singh v. The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others) Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others) Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others) Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others) were filed before this Court. The said bunch of petitions, some of the writ petitions were preferred by the land owners claiming enhanced compensation whereas others were preferred by the respondent- Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, challenging the award with a prayer for reducing the amount of compensation. All the petitions were clubbed together and disposed of by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 6.10.2010 rendered in the case of Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Jagdev Inder Singh (supra). The Division Bench after adjudicating the controversy in detail allowed the writ petitions preferred by the claimants-land owners. They were held entitled to a compensation of `18.50/- per square yard in respect of the acquired land and all the statutory benefits. The other set of writ petitions preferred by the Improvement Trust were dismissed. CWP No. 11150 of 2007 (O&M) 3 3. The petitioners have also filed an application bearing C.M. No. 15593 of 2011, seeking disposal of the instant petition in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Jagdev Inder Dr. Jagdev Inder Dr. Jagdev Inder Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Singh (supra) Singh (supra) Singh (supra). Notice of the application was issued and learned counsel for the respondent Improvement Trust has put in appearance. He has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature or contrary law in the present case. 4. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra) Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra). Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 6.10.2010 rendered in the case of Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra Dr. Jagdev Inder Singh (supra). The office is directed to add a copy of the detailed judgment dated 6.10.2010 along with this order. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) December December December December 12 12 12 12, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor