IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9408 of 1991
Date of decision: 27.1.2009
Improvement Trust, Moga
-----Petitioner
Vs.
The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal and others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate for Improvement
Trust in CWP Nos.9408, 9639 and 9640 of 1991.
Mr. AP Bhandari,Advocate for Improvement
Trust in CWP Nos. 13688, 13694 and 13696 of
1991.
None for the land owners.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition
Nos.9408, 9639 and 9640 of 1991 filed by the
Improvement Trust and CWP Nos.13688, 13694, 13696 of
1991 filed by the land owners, questioning the validity of
the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The
CWP No.9408 of 1991 2
Improvement Trust seeks reduction of compensation
awarded, apart from challenging the award of additional
compensation under section 23(1-A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the 1894 Act’) on the
ground that the award of the Collector was 3.2.1979 i.e.
prior to 30.4.1982, while the land owners seek further
enhancement.
2. Land in question was acquired in pursuance of
notification under section 36 of the Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, ‘the 1922 Act’) dated
27.12.1974. The said notification was followed by
notification dated 19.12.1975 under section 42 of the 1922
Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.2.1979 determined
compensation at the rate of Rs.2700/- per marla. On
reference to the Tribunal under the provisions of the 1922
Act, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.15000/- per
marla. The Tribunal considered 18 instances of sale
produced on behalf of the land owners and three instances
of sale produced on behalf of the Improvement Trust. The
said instances have been detailed in para 9 of the impugned
CWP No.9408 of 1991 3
award. Referring to Ex.R.1, which was a sale deed relied
upon on behalf of the Improvement Trust, it was noticed
that the price fetched therein was Rs.10,000/- per marla.
The Tribunal observed that in the site plan, the location of
the said land was inferior to the acquired land in as much
as the acquired land was on the main road. Even the
Collector had not acted upon Ex.R.1. The average of
instances produced by the claimants worked out to
Rs.24000/- per marla but the said instances were mostly
after the acquisition. It was also observed that some
allowance had to be made in favour of land owners as
acquisition in question was six months after the sale
instances Ex.R.1 and acquired land was better located.
Taking an overall view of oral and documentary evidence
on the record, compensation was determined at Rs.15000/-
per marla. Oral evidence, inter-alia, comprised AW4
Harmesh Chander, property dealer who stated that value of
one marla of land in the area was more than Rs.30,000/-
and gave certain instances in support of his statement. It
was also noticed that the acquired land abutted the GT road
CWP No.9408 of 1991 4
towards Ludhiana. There were petrol pumps, clinics,
cinema houses, tractor agencies near the acquired land.
Office of SDM was also near the acquired land apart from
Bus Stand, Police Station and Courts. Land was within
municipal limits.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the Improvement Trust. None has appeared for the land owners.
4. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust
submitted that the compensation awarded was excessive as
average of sale instances produced by the land owners
could not be taken into account being subsequent to
acquisition except instances 2, 3 and 4, which related to
very very small pieces of land
5. We are of the view that the Tribunal has reached
its conclusion based on appreciation of evidence. Two
instances relied upon by the land owners are prior to
acquisition and support the value arrived at by the
Tribunal. The location of land has not been disputed, which
is within the municipal limits and in the heart of the town.
Even if two views are possible, finding of the Tribunal is
CWP No.9408 of 1991 5
not liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ
jurisdiction unless the same is shown to be perverse or
without any evidence. We also find no scope for
enhancement as claimed by land owners. In these
circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with
the determination of market value by the Tribunal. We,
however, find merit in the contention that additional
compensation under section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act could
not be awarded to the land owners, in view of judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Paripoornan v. State
of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012, as the award of the
Collector is prior to 30.4.1982.
6. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of by
not interfering with the determination of market value but
with a direction that benefit under section 23(1-A) of the
1894 Act will not be available to the land owners.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
January 27, 2009 (Jintendra Chauhan)
'gs' Judge