THE JULLUNDUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JULLUNDUR Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.