RAKHA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 4.2 acres of land was acquired by the State of Punjab for the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, respondent for the development Scheme styled as Clock Tower Market, Ludhiana. The relevant notification was published on 25th of March, 1960. For this Scheme 2028.7 square yards of land belonging to Rakha Ram petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 302 of 1969 and 750 square yards of land of Dharam Vir Sagar and others petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 413 of 1969 were acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 42,874.25 to Rakha Ram and Rs. 34,796/- to Dharam Vir Sagar and others. At the instance of both the sets of petitioners in these writ petitions, their cases were referred to the Tribunal at Ludhiana under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of Rakha Ram was registered as Land Reference Case No. 40 of 1963 and that of Dharam Vir Sagar and others as Land Reference Case No. 42 of 1963 References Case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal consolidated the cases along with other references arising from the acquisition of land for the Clock Tower Market Development Scheme, Ludhiana. The Tribunal recorded the evidence jointly and also decided all these cases by one judgment. In Land Reference case No. 40, the Tribunal enhanced the compensation in favour of the petitioner to Rs. 1,10,000. In Land Reference Case No. 42 of 1963, the compensation awarded to Dharam Vir Sagar and others petitioners was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 140/- per square yard. This amount of compensation came to Rs. 1,05,000/-.

(2.) Both these sets of petitioners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal and have filed these writ petitions separately under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Tribunal as both these petitioners, that is C.W.P. No. 302 of 1969, Rakha Ram v. State of Punjab and others, and C.W.P. No. 413 of 1969, Dharam Vir Sagar and others v. State of Punjab and others, arise out of the same scheme and the same award of the Tribunal, they are being decided by one judgment.

(3.) The main grievance voiced by the petitioners in these petitions is that the amount awarded to them by the Tribunal was too low and that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the evidence adduced in support of the demand for enhanced compensation. It is also stated by the petitioners that the solatium for compulsory acquisition was not awarded in their favour either by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Tribunal.