Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 523 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-04-27

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2005
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos.4800 of 1985, 4801 of 1985, 4802 of 1985 and 4803 of 1985, as they arise from the same acquisition proceedings. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from C.W.P. No. 4801 of 1985. 2. Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Award dated 13.2.1985 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Tribunal, constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the plea that the rate of compensation assessed, for acquisition of petitioners land, is woefully inadequate and does not reflect the true market value.; 3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that pursuant to a scheme, framed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, notification under Section 36 of the Act was issued on 3.9.1974, followed by another notification under Section 42 of the Act on 5.8.1977. Award No. 3 of 1976-77 was pronounced on 12.4.1980 (Annexure P-l). Dissatisfied with the amount, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner preferred a claim for enhancement before the Tribunal, constituted under the Act. Vide Award dated 13.2.1985 (Annexure P-2), the Tribunal determined the market value of the land at Rs. 750/- per marla alongwith solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6%. 4. It is further contended that in the case of one such petition, filed for enhancement, before the Tribunal titled as Manjit Singh and Ors. V/s. Land Acquisition Collector, Jullundur Improvement Trustment and Ors., the Tribunal awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla. The Jullundur Improvement Trust-respondent No.l impugned the aforemention award in C.W.P. No. 2460 of 1983 "Manjit Singh and Ors. V/s. The Tribunal Constituted under the Town Improvement Act, Jullundur through its President and Ors.". A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.8.1983, dismissed the writ petition, thus, affirming the rate of compensation awarded by the Tribunal @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla. 5. It is further contended that in other similar petitions, as also in the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded compensation @ Rs. 750/- per marla. Two of these petitions, namely, C.W.P. No. 2456 of 1984 (Gurjaipal Singh and Ors. 1,000/- per marla. 5. It is further contended that in other similar petitions, as also in the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded compensation @ Rs. 750/- per marla. Two of these petitions, namely, C.W.P. No. 2456 of 1984 (Gurjaipal Singh and Ors. V/s. The Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur through its Chairman and Ors., and C.W.P. No. 576 of 1984 (New Finance and Credit Corporation (P) Ltd. V/s. The Tribunal constituted under the Town Improvement Act, 1922 Jullundur and Ors.), were allowed by this Court and compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per marla on the ground that the award of compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla had been upheld by this Court in C.W.P. No. 2460 of 1983, Manjit Singh and Ors. V/s. The Tribunal Constituted under the Town Improvement Act, Jullundur through its President and Ors.. There being no distinguishing features between the present petition and the aforementioned writ petitions, counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition be allowed and the same relief be granted to the petitioner. 6. Counsel for respondent No. 3-Jalandhar Improvement Trust, on the other hand, contends that though the present writ petition and the aforementioned writ petitions arise from the same proceedings of acquisition, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine issues of fact and can only examine the award of the Tribunal if it suffers from an illegality. If the Court comes to such a conclusion, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a decision afresh. No enhancement can be granted by this Court. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the Award, as also the judgments aforementioned. 8. It is no doubt true that while exercising jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reassessment of evidence and findings of facts may be impermissible. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, adopting a course, canvassed by respondent No. 3, namely, to remit the matter to the Tribunal would be an exercise in futility. Land, subject-matter of the present writ petition, as also C.W.P. Nos. 260 of 1983, 2456 of 1984 and 576 of 1984, was acquired, pursuant to the same notification and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, vide the same Award. Land, subject-matter of the present writ petition, as also C.W.P. Nos. 260 of 1983, 2456 of 1984 and 576 of 1984, was acquired, pursuant to the same notification and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, vide the same Award. The landowners in the present writ petition, as also the aforementioned writ petitions, filed separate applications before the Tribunal praying for enhancement of compensation. In the petitioners case, as also in C.W.P. N6.2456 of 1984 and 576 of1984, the Tribunal awarded compensation @ Rs. 750/- per marla. However, in another case, the Tribunal awarded compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla. The Jullundur Improvement Trust impugned this Award of the Tribunal by way of C.W.P. No. 2460 of 1983 (Manjit Singh and Ors. V/s. The Tribunal Constituted under the Town Improvement Act, Jullundur through its President and Ors.). This Court, vide judgment dated , 11.8.1983, dismissed the said writ petition affirming the rate of compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla. On the basis of the aforementioned judgment, C.W.P. Nos. 2456 of 1984 and 576 of 1984 were allowed by this Court and the rate of compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per marla. 9. As already observed, land, subject-matter of the present writ petition, as alsb the aforementioned writ petitions, was acquired, pursuant to the same scheme, notification and Award of Land Acquisition Collector. Counsel for respondent No. 3-Jalandhar Improvement Trust has been unable to refer to any facts that would distinguish this case from the aforementioned writ petitions. It is, thus, apparent that the controversy in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments and, thus, to remit the case to the Tribunal, to determine compensation afresh, would be a futile exercise, as the Tribunal would be bound by the judgments of this Court rendered in the aforementioned writ petitions. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in C.W.P. Nos. 2456 of 1984 and 576 of 1984. The petitioners in the present writ petition shall also be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla. The petitioners shall also be entitled to 15% solatium over and above the enhanced compensation amount besides the statutory ^interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of dispossession till the date of payment.