Allowed

Jai Parkash & Anr. v. Improvement Trust Tribunal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2014CWP/9043/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging an award granting low compensation for land acquired for a Development Scheme. The court modified the award, granting compensation at `40/- per sq. yard based on comparison with a different scheme and analysis of sale deeds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to grant compensation at `40/- per square yard along with solatium, acquisition charges, and interest.

Jai Parkash & Anr. Vs Improvement Trust Tribunal… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

SATYAWAN IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 2014.09.08 15:51"I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" CHANDIGARH High Court Chandigarh

¶2

Date of Decision : 02.09.2014

¶3

1. CWP No. 9043 of 1992

¶4

Jai Parkash (since deceased ) through L.Rs. & another

¶5

.......... PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jagadhri & another

¶8

...... RESPONDENTS

¶9

¶10

2. CWP No. 9044 of 1992

¶11

Kalawati

¶12

.......... PETITIONER

¶13

Versus

¶14

Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jagadhri & another

¶15

...... RESPONDENTS

¶16

*****

¶17

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶18

Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶19

Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent-Trust.

¶20

¶21

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶22

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶23

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶24

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACJ.

¶25

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP

¶26

Nos. 9043 & 9044 of 1992 as the pleas raised in both the writ

¶27

petitions are almost similar.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from CWP No. 9043 of 1992.

¶29

The petitioners are aggrieved by the award dated 12.01.1991 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ambala exercising

¶30

SATYAWAN 2014.09.08 15:51"I attested to the accuracy and 2 integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶31

CWP No. 9043 of 1992

¶32

the powers of President, Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jagadhri, vide which they have been awarded compensation @ ` 14/- per square yard for the acquired land, besides compulsory acquisition charges @ 15% along with interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of delivery of possession till the date of actual payment.

¶33

The Jagadhri Improvement Trust framed a Development Scheme No. 7 for the development of residential and commercial buildings. A notification under Section 38 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued, followed by the notification under Section 42 of the Act. The Collector proceeded to determine the compensation and the award was pronounced on 19.07.1972, vide which he determined the compensation @ ` 4/- per square yard for the acquired land of the petitioners falling in the Scheme No. 7 of the Jagadhri Town.

¶34

Being dissatisfied with the Award of the Collector, the petitioners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for referring their matter to the President of the Tribunal for determining the compensation. The matter was referred to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was averred on behalf of the petitioners that : (i) the acquired land formed a compact piece of land situated right on the road side requiring no levelling or any improvement; (ii) the area is within the Municipal limits of Jagadhri Town and formed a part of abadi of Jagadhri Town; (iii) the area was partly used for commercial

¶35

SATYAWAN 2014.09.08 15:51"I attested to the accuracy and 3 integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶36

CWP No. 9043 of 1992

¶37

purposes; (iv) in its vicinity Police Post, Bus Stand, Religious places like Gurdwara and temple, residential colonies and commercial establishments besides factories, schools and college etc.; and (v) the area had great potentiality for being used as commercial as well as residential purposes.

¶38

It was argued on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that compensation should have been determined on the basis of sale deeds Exhibits A-1, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9, which are reproduced as under :-

¶39

Sr. No.	Documents	Date of sale	Area sold in Sq. yards	Consideration	Average per squareyard
1	Ex. A1	25.06.1969	202	`8,000/-	`39.43ps
2	Ex. A6	26.06.1968	90	`10,000/-	`111.11ps
3	Ex. A7	17.04.1970	330	`20,000/-	`60.49ps
4	Ex. A8	10.08.1969	265	`8,000/-	`30.00ps
5	Ex. A9	02.09.1969	105	`2,000/-	`19.40ps

¶40

It was lastly contended that a common award for Scheme

¶41

Nos. 5 & 7 has been announced by the President, Improvement Trust, Tribunal, Jagadhri. For Scheme No. 5 the compensation was awarded @ 40/- per square yard whereas, for the land falling under Scheme No. 7, a meager compensation @ 14/- per square yard only has been awarded. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to compensation @ ` 40/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶42

Counsel for the respondent Improvement Trust, on the other hand, argued that the land of the petitioners are on different side of Jagadhri Town and, thus, they are not entitled to the same

¶43

SATYAWAN 2014.09.08 15:51"I attested to the accuracy and 4 integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶44

CWP No. 9043 of 1992

¶45

compensation as was awarded for the land acquired for Scheme No. 5. It was further argued that the land in question was agricultural in nature at the time of acquisition and thus the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement.

¶46

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. A perusal of the sale deeds Ex. A1, A6, A7, A8 & A-9 shows that the average price of it comes to 52/- per square yard. Since these are very small sale transactions, therefore, a cut of 25% can be applied and thus the average price comes to39/- per square yard. For the land which was acquired for Scheme No. 5, also compensation @ ` 40/- per square yard was awarded.

¶47

The land, in the present case, fell within the municipal limits of Jagadhri Town and had a lot of potentiality. Therefore, if we take the average price of the sale deeds Ex. A1, A6, A7, A8 & A9, the price of the acquired land comes to 39/- per square yard. If we take the price awarded for Scheme No. 5, the compensation awarded is 40/- per square yard. Thus whichever way we look at it, the petitioners would be entitled to compensation @ `40/- per square yard.

¶48

In view of the above, we allow the writ petitions and modify the impugned award and grant compensation @ ` 40/- per square yard to the petitioners. The petitioners are also held entitled to all the statutory benefits like solatium, compulsory acquisition charges and interest on the amount of compensation etc. under the

¶49

SATYAWAN 2014.09.08 15:51"I attested to the accuracy and 5 integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶50

CWP No. 9043 of 1992

¶51

Land Acquisition Act. The impugned award stands modified

¶52

accordingly.

¶53

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶54

(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE

¶55

02.09.2014

¶56

'SP'

Jai Parkash & Anr. v. Improvement Trust Tribunal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Parkash & Anr. v. Improvement Trust Tribunal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Suvidha Traders and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sarvesh Bisaria Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Ritu Wadhwa Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kuljit Singh Bedi Vs Union of India etc.

Gagandeep Kang and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh