Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs President on 1 January, 2009

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                      CWP No.2293 of 1990
                                   Date of decision: 15.1.2009

Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhaina
                                                   -----Petitioner
                             Vs.


President, Land Acquisition tribunal and others

                                                  --Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:   Mr. Sukhbir Mattewal, Advocate for the petitioner-
           Improvement Trust.

           Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with
           Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent No.2.



Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1. This petition has been filed by the Improvement

Trust against order dated 6.8.1986 passed by the Land

Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust,

Ludhiana.

2. Land of respondent No.2 was covered by

acquisition vide notification dated 8.6.1973 under section
CWP No.2293 of 1990 2

36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short,

‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 26.7.1974 under

section 42 of the Act. The Collector rendered award. The

Tribunal disposed of the reference on 14.6.1986 enhancing

the compensation. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an

application for review seeking enhanced interest and

solatium and also additional compensation in terms of

amended provisions of Act 68 of 1984. The Tribunal

allowed the said application vide impugned order dated

6.8.1986 and held that respondent No.2 will be entitled to

higher interest and solatium as per amended Act and also

be entitled to additional compensation under section 23(1-

A) of the Act inserted by the said amendment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that

having regard to the fact that the award of the Collector

was prior to 30.4.1982, additional compensation was not

payable to respondent No.2, in view of judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of

Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012.

CWP No.2293 of 1990 3

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is unable to

dispute the above legal position.

5. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and

impugned order is modified by directing that respondent

No.2 will not be entitled to additional compensation under

section 23(1-A) of the Act.

                                    (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
                                            Judge



January 15, 2009                       (Jitendra Chauhan)
'gs'                                           Judge