Improvement Trust Khanna vs Gurjit Singh and Another

Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose of CWP No. 7630 to 7638, 7640 to 7649, 7651 to 7662 of 2000 which have been preferred by the Improvement Trust, Khanna challenging the award dated 24.01.2000 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 whereby compensation in respect of the acquired land has been enhanced from Rs. 45,000/- per acre to Rs. 500 per marla i.e. approximately Rs. 1 lac per acre. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 7660 of 2000. A Notification u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, ''the Act'') was issued on 14.09.1973 proposing to acquire land measuring 176 kanal 5 marla for the scheme known as "Residential-cum-Commercial Centre" on Water Works Road, Khanna. The final notification of acquisition u/s 42 of the Act was issued on 17.10.1975, however, while passing the award dated 25.11.1981, only 80 kanal land was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 45,000/- per acre. The claimants sought references which have been decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act and presided over by the District Judge, Ludhiana, who vide award dated 24.01.2000 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 500/- per marla which comes out approximately Rs. 1 lac per acre.

The aforesaid Award is assailed by the Improvement Trust essentially on two counts: firstly, it is urged by Mr. Ghuman learned counsel for the Improvement Trust that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the benefit of additional market value, solatium and interest at the enhanced rates under the amended provisions contained in Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ''the ''1894 Act''). To say it differently, he argues that the solatium and interest ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal as per unamended provisions which were in force at the time when the notifications under Sections 36 & 42 of the Act were issued or when the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 24.11.1981. Secondly, he contends that the references sought by the claimants were barred by limitation and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal on merits.

Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand maintains that the benefit of amended provisions has been rightly granted to the claimants whose references were well within limitation also.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record.

Adverting first to the point of limitation, suffice it to mention here that the Tribunal has given a categoric finding that the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 24.11.1981 which was endorsed on the next date i.e. 25.11.1981 and the reference(s) submitted by the landowners) were received in the office of Collector on 30.12.1981. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in this regard held as follows:--

...The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award dated 24.11.1981 (endorsed on 25.11.1981) copy Ex. P12 regarding the acquired land. From the endorsement made by the concerned clerk in LAC case No. 44/1985, titled as Sardara Singh v. Improvement Trust Khanna, it is evident that the reference in that case was received in the office of the Collector on 30.12.1981 and the same appeared to have been filed within time. References in other cases also appeared to have been made soon thereafter as per endorsements made on the same. No evidence has been led by the respondents, whether various land owners were present at the time of giving of the award by the Collector. Most of the references in fact appeared to have been filed within the period of limitation.

(Emphasis applied)

The Improvement Trust has not disputed the date of receipt of reference(s) in the office of Collector i.e. on 30.12.1981 hence the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal in this regard calls for no interference by us. It is accordingly held that the references) made by the claimants) were well within the limitation period.

So far as the first contention as to whether or not the respondent-claimants are entitled to the benefit of amended provisions contained in Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the 1894 Act, it may be mentioned that Section 23(1A) entitles the claimant an additional compensation @ 12 per centum of the market value of the land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification u/s 4 upto the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Similarly, Section 23(2) grants solatium @ 30 per centum on the market value of the land in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 28, on the other hand, empowers the Court to direct the Collector to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation which the Collector ought to have awarded @ 9 per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. It further provides that "the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.".

The above-stated amended provisions were inserted in Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the 1894 Act vide Act No. 68 of 1984 and were made applicable to the proceedings pending on or after 30.4.1982.

The question of applicability of these provisions in respect of pending cases is no longer res Integra and has been settled by the Constitution Bench in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, summing up as follows:--

For all these reasons the questions raised in these petitions are answered as below:

(1) Section 23(1-A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every case where reference was pending u/s 18 before the Court [Section 23(1-A)].

(2) No additional compensation is payable in appeals pending on or after 24-9-1984 either in High Court or this Court.

(3) Additional compensation u/s 23(1-A) is also payable in all those cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the Collector on or before 30-4-1982 [Section 30(1)(a)].

(4) Similarly every landowner is entitled to additional compensation where the land acquiring proceedings started after 24-4-1982 whether the award by the Collector was made before 24-9-1984 or not [Section 30(1)(b)].

(5) Additional compensation u/s 23(1-A) is liable to be paid by the Collector as well (Section 15 of the Act).

(Emphasis applied)

Since in the instant case, the Reference Court passed the award on 24.01.2000, namely, the reference(s) u/s 18 were pending when the amended Sections 23(1A), 23(2) & 28 came into force, the respondent''s claim for the award of additional market value, solatium and interest at the amended rate(s) squarely falls within the conclusions reproduced above. No fault thus can be found with the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal.

No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition(s) stand dismissed accordingly. Dasti.