Smt.Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. The Karnal Improvement Trust Karnal & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate, for the claimant-petitioners. Mr.Sumeet Goel and Mr.Samir Rathour, Advocates, for the Improvement Trust. *** Augustine George Masih, J. Through this order, we propose to decide two writ petitions wherein challenge has been laid to the award dated 20.4.1987 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Improvement Act, 1922'). C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 has been preferred by the claimants C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -2- whose land was acquired by the Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal whereas C.W.P.No.5629 of 1987 has been preferred by the Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Trust). The claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the Improvement Trust prays for reduction of the compensation amount as granted by the Tribunal. The Improvement Trust vide its resolution No.580 passed in its meeting held on 5.12.1974 framed a Development and Street Scheme under Sections 23 and 24 read with Section 28 of the Improvement Act, 1922 for an area measuring 7088 square metres. Notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Act illustrating the boundaries of the streets was published in National Herald dated 18.12.1974 and Haryana Govt. Gazette Part III dated

24.12.1974. The State Government vide notification dated 6.10.1975 approved the Scheme under Section 41 of the Act which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 14.10.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat made an award on

28.11.1975 and allowed compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.218/- per sq. yard, Rs.3,75,500/- for the super structure standing thereon and Rs.50,000/- for removal and re-erection of the ammonia plant along with 15 per cent solatium and interest thereon. The claimants preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act) before the Land Acquisition Collector which was forwarded to the Tribunal which, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, granted full amount of assessed value of the super structures i.e. Rs.7,51,056/-. Solatium was enhanced to 30 per cent on the enhanced amount of super structures and the claimant- C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -3- land owners were also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the notification till the date of the award under Section 23 (1A) of the 1894 Act and further interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first year after the date of the award and for the remaining period at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment as provided under Section 28 of the 1894 Act. The rate of the land was left unchanged at the rate of Rs.218/- per sq. yard as also the removal and re- erection of the ammonia plant. Mr.M.L.Sarin, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the claimants while referring to the award dated 20.4.1987 passed by the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal has granted rate of Rs.218/- per sq. yard on the basis of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector qua Scheme No.37 (Exhibit R-7). The land acquired under this Scheme adjoined the land acquired under Scheme No.43. He contends that in Scheme No.37, on a reference preferred by the claimants whose land had been acquired under the said Scheme, the Tribunal under the Improvement Act, 1922 passed an award on 21.1.1988 wherein rate of Rs.1336/- per square yard was granted. The said award was challenged by the claimants- land owners and the Improvement Trust by filing various writ petitions which came to be decided by this Court vide judgment dated 15.9.1989 wherein the said award was maintained by this Court and the writ petitions filed by the Trust were dismissed. The said judgment of this Court has been reported as Vijay Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 1990 (1) PLR 135. Counsel, on this basis, contends that the petitioners are also entitled to the same rate especially when the Tribunal had relied upon the evaluation of the price of the land in Scheme No.37. He contends that the award of the C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -4- Tribunal also deserves to be modified to the extent that the solatium at the rate of 30 per cent has only been granted on the enhanced amount of super structures and not on the original amount of compensation and super structures. He prays that the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted for removal and re-erection of the ammonia plant is also on the lower side and it should have been 15 per cent of the investment made by the claimant-land owners. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, counsel for the Improvement Trust has submitted that the claimant-land owners have been wrongly granted the benefit of Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Tribunal vide its award dated 20.4.1987. He contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vasantrao and others, (2002) 7 SCC 657 has held that the benefit of Section 23 (1A) of the 1894 Act as an additional amount will not be applicable where the Land Acquisition Collector had made the Award before 30.4.1982. In the present case, the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector is dated 28.11.1975. He, on this basis, contends that the writ petition preferred by the Improvement Trust deserves to be allowed. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts are not in dispute. Land measuring 8894 sq. yards belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Improvement Trust for scheme No.43 known as Karnal Cold Storage and Surrounding Areas Development Scheme. The site was to be developed for commercial purposes and was situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Karnal. It is also not in dispute that the land acquired in C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -5- Scheme No.37 known as Old Sabzi Mandi Scheme adjoins the land which is the subject-matter of this case. The Tribunal vide its impugned award dated 20.4.1987 kept intact the award of Rs.218/- per sq. yard as the rate of the land as assessed by the Collector primarily relying upon the rate as granted under Scheme No.37 (Exhibit R-7). It is thus apparent that the market rate of the land in question in the present case was assessed by the Collector at the same rate as under Scheme No.37 of the Improvement Trust. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in Vijay Kumar's case (supra) would show that the writ petitions were preferred by the claimant-land owners and the Improvement Trust challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on 21.1.1988 qua the land under Scheme No.37 of the Improvement Trust wherein the claimants were held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1336/- per sq. yard. The said award was upheld by this Court vide its judgment dated 15.9.1989. The award of the Tribunal in the case of Scheme No.37 as also the decision of this Court in the writ petitions came during the pendency of the present writ petitions and, therefore, the same can be taken into consideration by this Court to evaluate and assess the market value of the land as the same are per se admissible. As the land in both the Schemes are adjoining each other, which fact has been admitted by the witnesses, both of the Trust as well as the claimant-land owners, and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector in Scheme No.37 has been relied upon by the Tribunal for maintaining the amount of compensation as assessed in the present case, the claimant-land owners cannot be deprived of the same rate of the land as assessed in Scheme No.37. Accordingly, the market rate of the land of the claimant- land owners which has been acquired by the Trust under Scheme No.43 is C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -6- assessed at Rs.1336/- per sq. yard. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the Tribunal has granted solatium at the rate of 30% on account of compulsory nature of acquisition only on the enhanced amount of the super structures. The amount, as per Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act being in addition to the market value of the land, the Court is mandated in every case to award a sum of 30 per cent of such market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled to 30 per cent solatium on account of compulsory nature of acquisition in addition to the market value of the land as provided and assessed under Section 23 of the 1894 Act. As regards the grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award by virtue of Section 23 (1A) of the 1894 Act as granted by the Tribunal vide the impugned award, the same cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasantrao's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the 1894 Act as an additional amount, will not be available where the Land Acquisition Collector had made the award before 30.4.1982. In the case in hand, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.11.1975 which is much before the said date. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside to this limited aspect. The assertion of the counsel for the claimant-land owners that the amount of 15 per cent of the investment made be granted for the removal and re-erection of the ammonia plant cannot be accepted for the reason that no evidence was produced by the claimant-land owners before C.W.P.No.7685 of 1987 -7- the Tribunal in support of their contention that it should have been 15 per cent of the investment. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are partly allowed. The rate of the land of the claimant-land owners is assessed at Rs.1336/- per sq. yard. They are held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the amount of compensation assessed for the land acquired. They shall also be entitled to interest as per the provisions of the 1894 Act. They would, however, not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23 (1A) of the 1894 Act. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 30, 2010 poonam Whether referred to Reporters? Yes/No.