JUDGMENT
J.S. Narang, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 23.12.1982 rendered by the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). The Improvement Trust, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’) acquired land measuring 1.47 acres (1120 sq. yards) under a Development Scheme for the area known as “Old Katha Mill” situated in Bhiwani City. Notifications Under Section 36 of the Act were published in three consecutive issues dated 16th, 23rd and 30th September, 1969 followed by notification Under Section 42(1) of the Act published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 12.5.1970. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered award dated 20.4.1971. Pursuant thereto awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 5/- per sq. yard, Rs. 5767.47 for the boundary wall, Rs. 5,936/- for the two buildings situated in the centre of the land and Rs. 1,350/- for two rooms situated on both sides of the Gali and additionally a sum of Rs. 300/- for the gate. In all, a sum of Rs. 489,953.47 was allowed as compensation besides 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
2. Saravshri Om Parkash Kedia and Durga Parkash Kedia claimed one half share each in the acquired property but they were unable to produce any documentary evidence in support of their title. Resultantly, a reference Under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of compensation among the owners was also made.
3. Om Parkash Kedia, being not satisfied of award of the Land Acquisition Collector, challenged the same before the Tribunal. The claim raised is that value of the building is not less than Rs. 70,000/- and that market value of the land was at least Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. Further claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss in his earnings. Resultantly, the reference was made to the Tribunal Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on account of the enhancement of compensation claimed. The reference was contested by the Trust by way of submitting detailed pleadings in this regard. On the other hand, Prabha Shanker Kedia, the other brothers and their mother Smt. Vidhya Devi Kedia filed the petition for claiming the entire amount of compensation. As per their plea, the acquired property belonged to Sh. Madan Lal Kedia, i.e. father and husband of the claimants respectively. It is also claimed that S/Shri Om Parkash Kedia and Durga Parkash Kedia have no title or interest in the acquired property, therefore, they are not entitled to receive any amount of compensation. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed. The parties led their ocular as well as documentary evidence and that the Tribunal returned findings upon the issues accordingly. The market value of the acquired land has been fixed @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard. On all other counts, the enhancement has been declined while returning findings on issue No. 1. The issue relating to the compensation for anticipated future earnings has been decided against the claimant. The matter relating to apportionment has also been considered vide issue No. 3A. It has been categorically observed that the findings given on the issues are subject to the decision, which may be given in a Regular Civil Suit filed by the interested party to get the award in dispute relating to Bhiwani Property set apart. Resultantly, the relief has been granted accordingly by way of allowing 15% as compulsory acquisition charges and interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of compensation i.e. 29.4.1971 till date. It has been further held that unless the award depicted as Exhibit P-16 relating to Bhiwani property is set aside in the Regular Civil Suit, Om Parkash and Durga Parkash claimants would not be entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation.
4. The petitioner has sought quashing of the award dated 23.12.1992 on the ground that inadequate compensation has been awarded by fixing the value of the land at Rs. 8/- per sq. yard whereas the value of the land was more than Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. Apart from this ground, various other grounds have been set up.
5. The petition has been contested by the trust by way of filing detailed written statement. The plea taken is that the Tribunal has substantially enhanced the compensation by way of accepting the value of the land at Rs. 8/- per sq. yard instead of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard on the basis of the evidence of the petitioner, which was duly considered. All other pleas have been controverted on the ground that no cogent evidence has been produced by the petitioner for seeking the enhancement beyond what has been granted by the Tribunal.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal had not examined the evidence produced by the petitioner in the right perspective. In fact, the enhancement granted by calculating the value of the land at Rs. 8/- per sq. yard is inadequate, therefore, not sustainable. He has further argued that the value assessed of the constructed area has also not been granted commensurate to the cost applicable at that time. Further, the area of the land shown as 7120 sq. yards is not correct and in fact, the area is 10000 sq. yards. Thus actually the Tribunal has fallen into error. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Trust has argued that the compensation has been correctly awarded by the Tribunal by determining the rate at Rs. 8/- per sq. yard, which has not been questioned by the Trust. He has controverted that the area has been correctly measured as 7160 sq. yards and that no evidence has been produced on record for taking the area as 10000 sq. yards as claimed by the petitioner. So far as the assessment in regard to the value of the built up area is concerned, the same has been taken correctly keeping in view the same can be determined as ‘A’ Class construction. Thus, the petition merits dismissal.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the paper book and the impugned award Annexure P1.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not submitted any meaningful argument for seeking the enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal had categorically gone into the evidence brought on record while determining the market value and has given the benefit of the land being situated in the locality with its potential value and holding that the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard appears to be too low. The rate has been assessed @ Rs. 8/- per square yard. I am not at all impressed on any count for granting further enhancement.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made oral request to the effect that the petitioner would be entitled to enhanced solatium pursuant to Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It is the admitted case that before the enactment of the Amendment Act, the solatium was provided Under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 15% on the market value of the land computed in accordance with the afore-stated provision. Admittedly, the solatium being provided in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 was introduced in the House of the People on 30.4.1982 and that the amendment was promulgated and commenced operation w.e.f. 24.9.1984. Thus, by way of amendment, the figure of “30 per centum” in place of “15 per centum” has been incorporated. This amendment came under the scrutiny of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh and vide the judgment rendered in the afore-stated, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed as under:
In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well as to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector Under Section 11 of the Parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Under Section 23 of the Parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector Under Section 19 of the parent Act, There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhancement solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award by the Court between 30 April 1982 and 24 September, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30 April, 1982.
10. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as to what shall be the effect upon the matters which have been pending and from which date they shall be effective beneficially. In this regard, the judgment needs to be noticed, which read as under:
Due significance must be attached to that word, and to our mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of the enhanced solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984.
11. Learned Counsel contends that in the instant case the award has been made on 23.12.1982, therefore, it falls within the period indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit accordingly. He further states that though the petition has not been amended, the effect of the amended Act, would be applicable in any case. He further contends that the petitioner would also be entitled to the enhanced rate of interest as incorporated Under Section 23(11) and in this regard also an oral prayer has been made.
12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Trust has not disputed the legal proposition but has stated that unless the prayer is incorporated by way of an amendment, the relief is not maintainable.
13. I have pondered over the matter in regard to the oral prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, it is the well settled law that no relief can be granted beyond the one it is claimed. However, in a given case, the Court can grant the indulgence and can accept the oral prayer, which may not require counter by the contestor and in that case the Court would be well within its jurisdiction to grant the relief. I am satisfied that only an academic exercise may have to be carried out in view of the technical objection raised by learned Counsel for the respondent. Thus, I accept the oral prayer of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed and relief in regard to the solatium and interest is granted pursuant to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Anr. case (supra). The award shall stand modified accordingly.