IMPROVEMENT TRUST KHANNA Vs. GURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.