http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KHANNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAND ACQUISITION  TRIBUNAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 557        JT 1995 (2)    57  1995 SCALE  (1)417

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   The  Notification under section 36 of the  Punjab  Town Improvement  Act, 1922 was published in the Gazette on  Sep- tember  14, 1973 and a Notification under s.41  sanction  of the scheme was published on December 3, 1975 for acquisition of  the  land in question of an extent of  29  Kanals  1-3/4 marls  of the land.  The Land Acquisition Collector  in  his award dated February 24, 1977 awarded the market value @ Rs. 1,88,731/-  per  acre.  On reference, the  Tribunal  in  its award  dated  March 28, 1985 enhanced  the  compensation  to Rs.307/- per sq.yd. upto a depth of 43 ft. and beyond 43 ft. at  Rs.205/-  per sq.yd. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  claimants filed  the  writ petition in the High  Court.   The  learned Single  Judge  in  C.W.P.  No.4309 of  1985  &  batch  while confirming  the award of the Arbitrator changed the  belting upto a depth of 50 ft. awarded to that land upto that extent together  with  statutory benefits as applicable  under  the Land  Acquisition  Amendment  Act  68  of  1984  which   was confirmed in L.P.A. No. 663 of 1989 and batch dated June  1, 1989.  Thus these appeals by Special Leave. 2.   We find force in the contention of the learned  counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust that the learned  Single Judge  of the High Court committed grievous error of law  in interfering  with  the belting made by  the  Arbitrator  and wrongly  increased it to 50 ft. depth.  It is seen that  the Arbitrator  on the basis of the evidence adduced before  the Court  in  two sale deeds upto a depth of 43  ft.  fixed  at Rs.307/-.   Therefore,   the   Arbitrator   determined   the compensation  @   Rs.307/- per sq.yd. The High  Court  found that  the  respondents  did not raise a point  in  the  writ petition  of the  But held that it was the duty of the  High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to have it  corrected,  as,  according to learned  Judge,  it  is  a palpable  error  committed  by  the  Tribunal.   We  do  not appreciate the view taken by the High Court.  The High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

has  not exercised the appellate jurisdiction under  section 54  of  the  Land Acquisition Act.   Admittedly,  under  the Punjab  Town  Improvement Act, 1922 no right  of  appeal  is provided.  Therefore, in exercise of the power under Article 226  the High Court has to confine itself to correcting  any error  of jurisdiction committed by the authorities  namely, the Arbitrator appointed under the Act and it cannot  assume suo motu jurisdiction of the appellate Court and attempt  to correct every mistake assumed to have been committed by  the Tribunal.   The High Court had not rested its conclusion  on any  factual  foundation for increasing the belting  upto  a depth  of 50 R. while the Tribunal had evidence  before  it. Considered  from this perspective, we are of the  view  that the  High Court was not justified in increasing the  belting from 43 ft. to 50 dt. to enhance the compensation @ Rs.307/- per sq.yard. 3.The  High Court also has awarded additional amount at  12% per annum on the enhanced compensation exercising the  power under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Amendment  Act 68 of 1984.  This controversy is now covered by the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in k.S.  Paripoornan v.State of Kerala reported in 1994 (5) SCC 593.   Therefore, the  award  of  the additional amount at 12%  per  annum  is clearly illegal.  It is accordingly set aside. 4.   It is next contended that the High Court would not have granted additional interest and solatium. We find no  in the contention. This Court interpreting the provisions of Punjab Town  Improvement  Trust  Act, 1922 has held that  the  Land reference  and not by adoption and therefore, the  Amendment Act  68/84 stands  applicable to the acquisition made  under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. In that view we hold that since the award of the Arbitrator was on March 28, 1985  namely, after the Amendment Act has come  into  force, the  claimants  are en-titiled to the payment of solatium  @ 30%  and  also interest for one year @ 9% from   24.2.77  to 28.8.78 (date of award  to date of taking posession) on  the enhanced compensation. Thereafter they are not entitled   to the  interest at 15%. The  appeals are  accordingly  allowed to the above extent.No costs. 59