GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 11553 & 11587 of 2001 and 2387 of 2010 because similar question of law and facts have been raised. The challenge in CWP Nos. 11553 & 11587 of 2001 is to the common award dated 25.7.2000 (P-3) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Bhatinda (for brevity, the Tribunal) and subsequent orders dated 22.8.2000 & 6.12.2000(P-4 & P-5), passed by the President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Bhatinda, fixing the market value of the property in dispute in the reference applications filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 1894 Act). In CWP No. 2387 of 2010, the petitioners have challenged the award, dated 9.4.2001 (P-1), passed by the President of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE facts as culled out from CWP Nos. 11553 & 11587 of 2001 are that the petitioners owned land within the municipal limits of Bhatinda. In 1976, the Bhatinda Improvement Trust, Bhatinda-respondent No. 3 (for brevity, the Trust) framed a development scheme under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, the Act) and sought to acquire land to execute the said development scheme. Since the scheme could not be finalised it was dropped. In 1984, the Trust again framed a development scheme, namely, Development Scheme for 16.44 Acres, covering an area measuring 79 Bighas 3 Biswas within the municipal limits of Bhatinda. On 27.1.1984, notice under Section 36 of the Act was issued and on 28.1.1987, the said scheme was notified under Section 42 of the Act after obtaining sanction from the State Government. THE land belonging to the petitioners was also covered in the said scheme. On 23.12.1988, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 85,662/-per acre for nehri and barani lands and Rs. 1,24,800/ per acre for gair mumkin lands falling in the Development Scheme. Separate amounts were awarded by him for structures, tubewells and trees etc..

(3.) THE petitioners have also placed on record a copy of the detailed order dated 22.8.2000 by which the zimni orders dated 7.6.2000, 24.7.2000 and 25.7.2000 have been modified in exercise of powers under Sections 152 and 151 CPC by the President of the Tribunal. Not only this, on 6.12.2000, the President of the Tribunal passed another order modifying the award dated 25.7.2000. It has been ordered that in para 36 of the award the words 100 feet be read as 100 yards. This correction was with reference to the compensation for land falling up to a certain depth from the main metalled road i.e. Goniana Road (P-5). A perusal of the order shows that it has been signed only by the President of the Tribunal and not by other members/Assessors. THE grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned award is unsustainable in the eyes of law because it has been announced only by the Tribunal and not by the other members. Moreover, one of the Assessors, namely, Mrs. Bimal Garg did not agree with the President regarding the market value of the acquired land and gave a dissenting note. THE other Assessor never signed the original award.