Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 704 (PNJ)

Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Gurdial Singh

2005-07-06

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2005
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an application made under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents-land owners claiming the benefit of enhanced solatium payable by virtue of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act), which has been retrospectively made applicable with effect from 30.4.1982. 2. Land belonging to the land owners was acquired by the State of Punjab for a public purpose under the provisions of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951. The Collector rendered his award on 17.2.1961 which was followed by the award of the Tribunal dated 12.1.1973, which granted solatium at 15% in addition to the compensation. The Trust thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3962 of 1973 challenging the award of the Collector and the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 6.9.1982. The land owners thereafter moved an application i.e. Civil Misc. No. 3127 of 1985 in C.W.P. No. 3962 of 1973 praying that as the solatium payable on account of the land acquisition has been enhanced from 15% to 30% by the Act, the land owners were entitled to the enhanced solatium. This application was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 9.5.1986 and it was directed that the solatium at the rate of 30% be given to the applicants. 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Improvement Trust praying that an application under Section 152 C.P.C. for the relief claimed was not maintainable and secondly that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 could not be made applicable to the present acquisition. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. V/s. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. Etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 wherein it has been held that the Act would be applicable only to the awards made by the Collector, the Tribunal and the appeals arising therefrom prior to 30.4.1982. We find from the facts of the present case that the awards of the Collector and the Tribunal were rendered well before the aforesaid parameters fixed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, although the decision of the writ petition rendered within this period. We find from the facts of the present case that the awards of the Collector and the Tribunal were rendered well before the aforesaid parameters fixed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, although the decision of the writ petition rendered within this period. As a writ petition cannot be deemed to a proceeding under the Act, the benefit of enhanced solatium cannot be given to the land owners, 5. It has been contended by Mr. Suvir Sehgal, the learned Counsel for the respondents that though the present proceedings arise out of a writ petition but the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court must also be read into these as well. 6. We find no merit in this plea. A bare perusal of the judgment aforesaid would reveal that it refers only to the awards of the Collector and the Tribunal and the appeals arising out of those awards, the writ proceedings cannot be said appeals arising out of those awards. 7. In view of what has been held, the question as to whether an application under Section 152 C.P.C. was maintainable or not need not be gone into. 8. We accordingly allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.