L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City …APPELLANT VERSUS Shiv Puri Chela and others …RESPONDENTS L.P.A. No.1449 of 2009 (O&M) Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City …APPELLANT VERSUS Sukhdev Raj and others …RESPONDENTS L.P.A. No.1450 of 2009 (O&M) Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City …APPELLANT VERSUS Smt. Pushpa Arora and others …RESPONDENTS L.P.A. No.1451 of 2009 (O&M) Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City …APPELLANT VERSUS Ram Karan and others …RESPONDENTS L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -2- L.P.A. No.464 of 2010 (O&M) Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City …APPELLANT VERSUS Thakardwara Shiv Puri and others …RESPONDENTS DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 23, 2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the private respondents. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.1448,1449,1450,1451 of 2009 and 464 of 2010 as common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals. Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala has filed these Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment dated 19.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents (land owners) against the award dated 11.02.1987 passed by the Improvement Trust Tribunal, Ambala was allowed and the award was partly modified and the market value of the acquired land was enhanced with the benefit of solatium @ 30% and the statutory interest. In the present case, 158 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Jhandli was acquired vide notification dated 22.10.1974 issued under Section 36 of L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 followed by notification dated 20.4.1976 issued under Section 42 of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 18.4.1978. While assessing the market value, the Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land into three blocks and assessed the market value @ ` 16,500/- per acre ( ` 3.41 per sq.yard) for Block A, @ ` 16,000/- per acre ( ` 3.31 per sq.yard) for Block B and @ ` 15,500/- per acre ( ` 3.20 per sq.yard) for Block C. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the President, Improvement Trust Tribunal, Ambala City. The Tribunal vide its award dated 11.2.1987 had upheld the division of the land in three blocks made by the Land Acquisition Collector and enhanced the compensation to ` 15/- per sq. yard for Block A, ` 12/- per sq. yard for Block B and ` 10/- per sq. yard for Block C. In addition, the Tribunal has also held that the respondents-land owners were entitled to solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual payment. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the land owners filed different writ petitions which were partly allowed by the learned Single Judge, as indicated above. Against the said judgment, the appellant-Improvement Trust filed review applications for reviewing/modification of the impugned judgment, which have also been dismissed. After notice, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in determining the market value of the acquired land by the learned Single Judge @ ` 38/- per sq. yard for Block A, ` 34/- per sq. yard for Block B and ` 28.50 per sq. yard for Block C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has determined the market value at the enhanced rate on the basis of an earlier award pertaining to the land acquisition case of P.K.R. Jain Girls High School, Ambala City, which was acquired nine years prior to the acquisition in question as well as an award pertaining to the acquisition of land by Housing Board about a year before the acquisition in question. In our view, the learned Single Judge has fairly determined the just market value of the acquired land on the basis of the aforesaid material and the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash (dead) by LRs and others Versus Union of India and another, 2004 (3) PLR 727 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur Versus The Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 345. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute seriously the determination of the market value of the acquired land at the above-said rate. However, he argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law while awarding 30% solatium and interest @ 9% from the date of award till one year and @ 15% per annum till actual payment thereof, on the enhanced amount under the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the 1984 Act. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, the L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 18.4.1978, i.e., much prior to the amendment, as such, these benefits were not to be granted to the land owners. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel. This issue is not res integra. The Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust Versus Vasantrao and others, (2002) 7 SCC 657, while disposing of various appeals, including the appeals filed by Bhiwani Improvement Trust, and after considering and deciding the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, has held that while incorporating the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the State Acts, the intention of the legislature was that amendments in the Land Acquisition Act relating to determination and payment of compensation would be applicable to acquisition of lands for the purposes of the State Acts. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to the benefits conferred by Section 23(1-A), if applicable, and Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the 1984 Act for acquisition of land for the purposes of the State Acts. Since in the present case the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was made before 30.4.1982, the learned Single Judge has rightly not given the benefit of additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the land owners (see K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1995 SC 1012). However, since the award passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is made after 30.4.1982, the claimants are entitled for the benefits in view of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Amended Act (see Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., L.P.A. No.1448 of 2009 (O&M) -6- AIR 1989 SC 1933). In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 23, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE