The Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur vs Inder Singh

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—This judgment will dispose of Letters patent Appeals No. 124 (with Cross-objection No. 20 of 1980), 274, 277, 282, 283, 284, and 285 of 1980, as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 124 of 1980 has been filed on behalf of the Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur, and Cross-objection No. 20 of 1980, has been filed not this appeal by the claimants, where as the other Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by different appellant claimants.

The Punjab Government sanctioned a Development scheme for an area measuring 81.6 acres framed by the Jullundur Improvement Trust on 14th April, 1969. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called ''the Collector'') divided the land comprised in the scheme into five belts i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/per Marla for ''A'' Belt, Rs. 125/ per marla for ''B'' Belt Rs. 70/ per Maral for ''C'' Belt and Rs. 40/- per Marla for ''D'' Belt. However the assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per Mala for ''E'' Belt the land owner-claimants whose lands had been acquired were dissatisfied with this compensation. They made application u/s 18 of the land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'').

After taking in to account the location, quality nature and potential value of the acquired land the Tribunal concluded that "the division of the land into different Belts was somewhat artificial" and "there was no great difference in the market value of the different plots" and it fixed the value of lands falling in belts ''C'' and ''D'' at Rs. 140/-per Marla for the rest of the land in Belt ''E'' Dissatisfied the Tribunal accepted the conclusion of the Collector that it was proper to frame Belts ''E'' because the land comprised there was of a different quality and value and it endorsed his findings regarding the value of the land in Belt ''E''. Aggrieved by this judgment, the claimant - land-owners filed Civil writ petition Nos. 1697, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2154, 2189, and 2190 of 1975, and 3282 of 1977. The learned Single judge partly allowed these writ petitions except Civil writ petition No. 2151 of 1975. He endorsed the findings of the Tribunal regarding compensation in Belts ''C'' and ''D'' but he allowed solatium and interest on the compensation. The learned judge, however, allowed Civil Writ petition No. 2151 of 1975. He enhanced the compensation to Rs. 100/- per marla for 1-1/2 kanals of land which was in a depression and to Rs. 140/-per marla for the rest of the land in belt ''E''. Dissatisfied the claimants have filed these letters Patent Appeals. As mentioned earlier the Jullundur Improvement Trust has filed Letters patent appeal No. 124 of 1980 against the enhancement of compensation in belt ''E'' and the claimants have filed No. 20 of 1980 in this appeal.

We shall first take up the appeals filed by the claimant- appellants. The tribunal has meticulously examined every piece of evidence adduced by the appellants. It has not ignored from consideration any important circumstance or piece of evidence. It has based its conclusions on the instances of sales, which took place near or about the time of the acquisition. Before the learned Single Judge, also no meaningful argument challenging the order of the Tribunal regarding compensation of lands in Belts ''C'' and ''D'' seems to have been raised. Before us also, the learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to any instance of sale at a higher price than awarded for the land in dispute. They have not been able to point out any error in the application of any well established principle for determination of compensation for acquired lauds. We find no merit in these appeals

The position of Letters Patent Appeal No 124 of 1982 is, however, different. From the award made by the Collector, it appears that land comprised in ''E'' Belt measuring 8 kanals and 17 marlas, a portion of this land has been exempted by the Trust. The value of the remaining land was put at Rs. 20/- per Maria for the portion under the pond and at Rs. 40/ per Maria regarding rest of the land. The total compensation for this land was assessed at Rs. 6080/-. The Tribunal accepted the valuation of this land because the claimants bad not examined any evidence to establish that the conclusions of the Collector regarding valuation of this land are incorrect. They examined Shri Ram Lal Gupta, their Attorney that about 1-1/2 Kanals of land was under a pond which was 1-1/2 feet deep. He did not depose the level and condition of the surrounding land. No site plan was produced to denote the prevailing situation. This land had been purchased for Rs. 6700/- in the year 1967 on the basis of verified claims. The Tribunal concluded that the value of this land could very well be Rs. 6080/- in the year 1963, when the land was acquired On the basis of these circumstances and pieces of evidence the Tribunal determined the value of this land.

The learned Single Judge has in his judgment clearly brought out the scope of writ jurisdiction He has noticed a couple of authorities of the final Court and a Division Bench decision of this Court laying down the limits of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, with respect to the learned Single Judge, we are constrained to observe that he has not correctly applied those principles while deciding this appeal.

Now, the Tribunal had made general observations regarding the formation of Belts He had opined that the division of the land into different Belts was somewhat artificial and there was not much difference in the market price of the different plots. However, in the same very paragraph he had qualified these general observations and had expressly added an exception with regard to the land in Belt ''E''. It will be apposite to reproduce the conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter in its own words:

I am of the view that the division of the land into different Belts was some-what artificial........there was no great difference in the market value of the different plots..........the situation with regard to land of Belt ''E'' is some-what different and compensation in respect of it would be referred to separately at the appropriate place in the present award.........

The above quotation clearly shows that the Tribunal had not found any fault with the formation of Belt ''E''. He had expressly treated the land in this Belt to be somewhat different from the land in Belts ''C'' and ''D''. The learned Single Judge got a wrong impression from a reading of the above conclusion that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that ''no belting was desirable''. He has further observed: ''after it is noticed that the Tribunal found no merit in the belting, the point which now falls for determination is whether different compensation for Belt ''E'' can be awarded and whether there was any basis for doing so". This conclusion does not correctly reflect the findings of the Tribunal regarding the formation of Belts. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal had accepted the formation of Belt ''E'' by the Collector to be correct and determined compensation for this land on that basis. The conclusions of the Tribunal are in no way per erse. Neither there is any error on the face of the record. After an appraisal of all the relevant evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal fixed the price of the land in dispute. He had not taken into account any inadmissible piece of evidence nor had he omitted to consider any important circumstance or evidence After appreciating different pieces of evidence, he gave a finding of fact regarding the location, nature, quality and potential value of the land in dispute 1-1/ kanals of the land were admittedly under the pond and there was no evidence regarding the nature and level of the balance of the land in Belt ''E''. So, he affirmed the findings of the Collector regarding this land. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it could not be said that the land surrounding the land was of the same value as the land in Belt ''E'' or ''D''. The learned Single Judge himself embarked upon appreciating the evidence and reached different conclusions thereon. He has not shown as to how the order of the Tribunal was perverse or there was any error on the face of the record.

We, therefore, allow Letters Patent Appeal No. 124 of 1980 and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge The Cross-Objections No. 20 of 1980 consequently fail and are dismissed The rest of the appeals (Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 274, 277, 282, 283, 284 and 285 of 1980) are without any merit and are dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

I agree.