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