LexMAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL AND ORS. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. JANUARY 24, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 18--Punjab Town Im- provement Act, 1922-Acquisition of land for eXpansion of municipal town-Award made by Collector binds Improvement Tmst-Claim for en- hanced compensation-claimant to establish that amount awarded by Land C Acquisition Officer is inadequate-Mutation entries-Inadmissible evidence-- Sale instances referred to in award of Land Acquisition Officer-Not proved-- They can neither be relied on nor can be looked into as evidence-Award of Tribunal not made part of evidence before cpurt-Court not to look into that __... award. Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal-Land Acquisition case-- Market value detennined by Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence-- Supreme Court not to interfere with compensation so detennined on appeal under Article 136. D Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984-Additional benefits- E Notification published on 1-8-1975-Award of collector dated 27.1.1977- Possession of lands taken in 1977 and 1979-Benefits of enhanced solatium and interest-Allowed-Additional amount u/s 23( 1-A}-Disallowed. Certain Land was acquired for the public purpose of expansion of municipal town under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 by publi- F cation of the Notification dated 1-8-1975. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 27-1-1977 determined the compensation. On reference, the Tribunal by its award dated 2-3-1984 enhanced the compensation. The High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal in the Writ Petition filed by the claimants for further enhancement. Hence this appeal. G . The claimant contended that in a subsequent award, the Tribunal had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 800 per maria. Both the lands were acquired under the same Notification and therefore, the appellant also was entitled to the same rate. It was contended that the award in that case had since been challanged by the respondent in the High H 535 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R. A Court, t~is matter might be remitted to the High Court for reconsideration on the basis of the subsequent award. It was also alleged that even otherwise the sale transactions indicated in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer showed that the lands in the neighbourhood had higher market value than the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the acquired lands and that, therefore, the appellant also was entitied to th~ higher compensation at the B same rates and for additional benefits awardable under the Land Acquisi- tion (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The respondent contended that the appellants were not entitled to any furhter enhancement. The sale instances referred to in the award of the C Land Acquisition Officer were not proved by adducing any evidence before the arbitrators and that, therefore, it was not a matter for the Supreme Court to reconsider the evidence. It was alleged that the award of the Tribunal was challenged in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and when the High Court itself was not competent to reap- preciate the evidence and had come to a different conclusion than what was D held by the Tribunal on fact, this Court also should not embark upon appreciation of evidence and come to a diferent conclusion. He further contended that the award of the Tribunal was the subject matter of the Writ Petition and since that Writ Petition was pending, it was not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and give enhanced compensation on E that basis. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The award is an offer and whatever amount was deter- mined by the Collector is an offer and binds the Improvement Trust. F However, the Collector also is required to collect the relevent 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 i:'ward made by the Collector. Reference is not an appeal. It is an original proceeding. It is for the claimants to seek the G determination of proper compensation by producing sale deed and examin- · ing the vendors 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 adducing other
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.