Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2185 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 401
JT 1995 (2) 379 1995 SCALE (1)826
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave, arises from the order of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
CWP No. 1727/84, dated 25.7. 1984
2. A total extent of 821 kanals (1 kanal equivalent to 500
sq. yds.) of land was acquired for the Public purpose of
expansion of municipal town, Phagwara under the Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922 by publication of the Notification
dated 1.8.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award
dated 27.1.1977 determined the compensation at Rs.313/- per
marla (one marla is equivalent to 25 sq.yds.) for ’C’ class
lands, at Rs.250/- per marla for ’D’ class lands. On
reference, the Tribunal by its award dated 2.3.1984 enhanced
the compensation at Rs.800/- per marla for ’A’ class lands,
at Rs.750/- per marla for ’13’ class lands at Rs.625/- per
marla for ’C’ class lands and Rs. 500/- per marla for ’D’
class lands. In the Writ Petition filed by the claimants
for further enhancement for ’C’ and ’D’ class lands the High
Court upheld the award of the Tribunal. Thus this appeal,
by special leave.
3. Shri V.C.Mahajan, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the claimant raised three-fold contention. First, he
contended that in a subsequent award dated May 5, 1987 for
the ’C’ class and ’D’ class lands the Tribunal has
respectively awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs.800/-
per marla. Both the lands were acquired under the same
Notification and that, therefore, the appellant also is en-
titled to the same rate. Secondly, it contended that the
award in that case had since been challenged by the
respondent in the High Court, this matter may be remitted to
the High Court for re-consideration on the basis of the
subsequent award. Thirdly, he contended that even otherwise
the sale transactions indicated in the, award of the lands
in the neighbourhood have higher market value than the
compensation granted by the Tribunal for the acquired lands
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
and that, therefore, the appellant also
381
is entitled to the higher compensation at the same rates and
for the additional benefits awardable under the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.
4. Shri Dhruv Mehta, the learned counsel for the
respondent, on the contrary, contended rather vehemently
that the appellants are not entitled to any further
enhancement. The sale instances referred to in the award of
the Land Acquisition Officer were not proved by adducing any
evidence before the arbitrators and that, therefore, it is
not a matter for this Court to reconsider the evidence. He
also contended that the award of the Tribunal was challenged
in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
When the High Court itself was not competent to reappreciate
the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that
was reached by the Tribunal on fact, this Court also should
not embark upon appreciation of evidence and come to a
different conclusion. He further contended that the award
of the Tribunal, dated 5.5.1987 is the subject matter of the
Writ Petition, wherein, the Tribunal has taken irrelevant
facts into consideration which cannot be sustained. Since
that Writ Petition is pending, it is not open to this Court
to reappreciate the evidence and give enhanced compensation
on that basis. However, he fairly conceded that in view of
the Judgment of this Court in Bhatinda Improvement Trust v.
Balwant Singh & Ors., A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2214, the claimants
would be entitled to the additional benefits of the
Amendment Act to the extent of enhanced solatium and
interest but, not to payment of the additional amount under
Scc.23(1-A) of the Act.
5. If we Have regard to the above rival contentions, the
facts and circumstances of this case do not permit our in-
terference with the order under appeal. It is now settled
law that the award is an offer and whatever amount was
determined by the Collector is an offer and binds the
Improvement Trust. However, the Collector also is required
to collect the relevant material and award compensation on
the basis of settled principles of determination of the
market value of an acquired land. The Improvement Trust,
therefore, cannot go behind the award made by the Collector.
Reference is not an appeal. It is an original proceeding.
It is for the claimants to seek the determination of proper
compensation by producing sale deeds and examining the
venders or the vendees as to passing of consideration among
them, the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired lands,
similarly of the lands sold and acquired and also by
adduction of other relevant and acceptable evidence. In
this case, for the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act the
Tribunal is constituted. Therefore, if the claimants intend
to seek higher completion to the acquired land. the burden
is on them to establish by proof that the compensation
granted by the Land ACquisition Officer is inadequate and
they arc entitled to higher compensation. could be
established only by adduction of evidence of the comparable
sale transactions of the land acquired or the lands in the
neighbourhood possessed of similar potentiality or
advantages. Unfortunately, in this case, no witness had
been examined in proof of the prevailing market value of the
lands or in the neighbourhood, Only mutation entries were
relied upon. They are inadmissible evidence and cannot be
relied upon. No doubt, in the award itself, the Land
Acquisition Officer referred to the sale transactions.
Since the Land
382
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Acquisition Officer is an authority under the Act,
he collected the evidence to determine the compensation as
an offer. Though that award may be a material evidence to
be looked into, but the sale transactions referred to
therein cannot be relied upon implicitly, if the party
seeking enhancement resists the claim by adducing evidence
independently before the Court or the Tribunal. In this
case, since no steps were taken to place the sale transac-
tion referred in the award, they cannot be evidence. So
they can neither be relied upon nor can be looked into as
evidence.
6. If we ignore the sale instances, we do not have any
other evidence except the award dated 5.5.1987 given by the
Tribunal. Unfortunately, no application has been filed for
receiving it as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC. Unless it forms part of evidence on record, we cannot
look into that award evidence before Court. Even otherwise,
when admittedly, the respondent had already challenged the
validity of that award in the High Court, we express no
opinion on the correctness of that regard. But that is not
a ground for this Court to remand the matter to the High
Court for reconsideration, as asked for.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no case
made out for increasing the compensation. It is also to be
seen that under the Act no right of appeal is provided to
the High Court. Therefore, when the High Court is dealing
with the matter under Article 226, it is settled law that it
cannot reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion. It has to consider whether the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal was warranted and justifiable on the
evidence placed before it and whether settled legal
principles of law in determining compensation were taken
into consideration and if the conclusions reached were
unsustainable on settled principles of law. The High Court
if finds the award to be wholly unsustainable, it may be
open to it to remit the matter to the Tribunal for
reconsideration. The Tribunal also should determine the
compensation on legal, valid, reliable and acceptable
relevant evidence and not based on feats of imagination.
The Tribunal, if awards compensation at whim or arbitrarily,
apart from it being a misconduct, the award would get
vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. When
such is the position, this Court cannot embark upon
appreciation of evidence and come to a different conclusion
and record a finding whether the market value determined by
the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable.
8. From the evidence, it is clear and we hold that the
market value determined by the Tribunal is based on
appreciation of evidence and it has taken settled legal
principles into consideration to determine compensation. We
therefore, cannot interfere with compensation so determined
on an appeal under Article 136. But - the claimants are
entitled to the additional benefits of solatium at 30 % on
the enhanced compensation. Possession was taken Of some
lands on 17.8.77 and rest of the lands on 31.7.1979.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest at 9 %.
from the dates of taking possession for one year and aft"
expiry of one year at 15% per annum till the date of payment
or deposit of the additional compensation before the
Tribunal whichever is earlier.
9. As regards payment of additional amount at 12% per
annum under Section
383
23(1-A) of the Act, the claimants are not entitled since
Notification was published on 1.8.1975 and the award of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Collector was made on 27.1.1977.
10.The appeal is accordingly allowed only to the extent of
allowing additional solatium and interest as indicated
above. No costs.
385