Holding

The High Court was not justified in increasing the belting beyond the Tribunal’s determination nor in awarding 12% interest; however, the Amendment Act applies, granting a 30% solatium and 9% interest for one year on the enhanced compensation.

Summary

The Punjab Town Improvement Trust sought compensation for land acquired under a 1922 Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded market value, which the Tribunal enhanced to Rs 307 per sq yd up to a depth of 43 ft. The Trust challenged this in the High Court, which confirmed the Tribunal’s award but unilaterally increased the belting depth to 50 ft, added statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, and granted interest at 12% per annum. The Supreme Court held that, because the 1922 Act provides no right of appeal, the High Court could only correct jurisdictional errors and could not alter the Tribunal’s factual findings; thus the increase to 50 ft was unjustified and the 12% interest illegal. However, the Court affirmed that the Amendment Act applied, entitling the Trust to a 30% solatium and interest at 9% for one year on the enhanced compensation. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s excess awards while confirming the statutory benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, can alter the belting depth determined by the Tribunal under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 where no appeal right exists.
Whether the High Court had factual basis to increase the belting from 43 ft to 50 ft.
Whether the award of interest at 12% per annum under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984 is lawful.
Whether solatium and interest under the 1984 Amendment Act are applicable to acquisitions made under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Acts. 54
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984s. 23(1-A)
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922s. 36, s. 41

Subjects

Article 226Punjab Town Improvement ActLand acquisitionCompensationBeltingInterestSolatiumAppellate jurisdictionTribunalAmendment Act

Judgment

KHANNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
r
A
v. +-
LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL AND ORS.
\-
~

JANUARY 18, 1995

B [K. RAMASWAMYAND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Constitution of India-Art 226--Punjab Town improvement Act, 1922- ~. I
~

Sections 36 .and 41-Acquisition of land-Award of Compensatio~Belting
of land made by Tribunal-Writ Petitio~High Court increasing belt-
c ing-Compensation enhanced-Whether High Court was justified in interfering
with belting made by Arbitrator in exercise or writ jurisdiction-Held, No.

The Notification u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922
was published for acquisition of certain land. The Land Acquisition Col-
lector awarded the market value@ Rs.1,88,731 per acre. On reference, the
D Tribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs. 307 per sq. upto a depth of 43 >--
ft. and at Rs. 205 per sq. yd. beyond 43 ft. The claimants filed the Writ
Petition challenging the award of the Tribunal. The High Court while
confirming_ the award of the Arbitrator changed the belting upto a depth
of 50 ft. awarded to that land together with statutory benefits as applicable
under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 which was con-
E
firmed in LPA. Hence this appeal.
.
·'

The appellants alleged that the High Court committed grievous
error of law in interfering with the belting made by the Arbitrator and
wrongly increased it to 50 ft. deptt. It was next contended that the High :-1--
F Court should not have granted additional interest and solatium.

Allowing the appeal this Court

HELD: 1.1. Under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, no right
of appeal is provided. Therefore, in exercise of the power under Article 226
G of the Constitution, 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 ~f the
appellate court and attempt to correct every mistake assumed to have been
committed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the High Court had not
H rested it conclusion on any factual foundation for increasing the belting
404
KHANNAIMPROVEMENTTRUSTv. LANDACQN. TBNL. 405

up~o a depth of 50 ft. for which the Tribunal had evidence before it. A
-+ Therefore, the High Court was not justified in increasing the belting from
43 ft. to 50 ft. to enhance the compensation @ Rs. 307 per sq. yard.

1.2. The Award of the additional amount at 12% per annum on the
enhanced compensation exercising the power. u/s 23 (1-A) of the Land
Acquisition Amendment Act 68 or 1984 was illegal. I406-G-H] B
KS. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, [1994) 5 SCC 593, relied on.

1.3. The Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1985 is made
applicable to the acquisition made under the Punjab Town Improvement C
Trust Act, 1922. Since the award of the Arbitrator was made on March 28,
1985 namely, after the Amendment had come into force, the claimants were
entitled to the payment of solatium @ 30% and also interest for one year
@ 9% from the date of award till date of taking possession, on the
enhanced compensation. [407-B-CJ
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3867 of
1990 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.89 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in L.P.A. No. 663 of 1989.
E
R.K. Talwar and Goodwill Indeevar for the Appellant.

Mrs. Purnima Bhatt Kale, Anant Palli and E.C. Agarwala for the
respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F
· The Notification under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement
Act, 1922 was published in the Gazette on September 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 Marlas of the land. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award G
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 H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} 1 S.C.R.

A of 1985 & batch while confirming the award of the Arbitr~tor change~ 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 Amend-
ment Ad 68 of 1984 which was confirmed in LP.A. No. 663 of 1989 and
batch dated June 1, 1989. Thus these appeals by Special Leave.

B 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 in seen that the
Arbitrator on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court in two
C sale qeeds 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 j
I
correctness of the belting by the Tribunal. But held that it was the duty of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to have it
D corrected, as, according to learned judges, it is a palpable error committed
by the Tribunal. We do not appreciate the view taken by the High Court.
The High Court 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
E 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
F under a depth of 50 ft. while the Tribunal had evidence before ~it. Con-
sidered 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.

The High Court also has awarded additional amount at 12% per
G annum on the enhanced compensation exercising the power under section
23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984. This con- ,,,,...
troversy is now covered by the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in KS. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a, reported in [1994] 5 SCC 593.
Therefore, the award of the additional amount at 12% per annum is clearly
H illegal. It is accordingly set aside.
KHANNAIMPROVEMENTTRUSTv. LAND ACQN. TBNL. 407

It is next contended that the High Court would not have granted A
additional interest and solatium. We find no force in the contention. This
Court interpreting the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act,
1922 has held that the Land Acquisition Act was made applicable by
reference and not by adoption and therefore, the Amendment Act 68/84
stand applicable to the acquisition made under the Punjab Town Improve-
ment Trust Act, 1922. In that view, we hold that since the award of the
B
Arbitrator was on March 28, 1985 namely, after the Amendment Act has
come into force, the claimants are entitled 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 possession) on the enhanced compensation. There-
after they are not entitled to the interest at 15% The appeals are accord- c
ingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

A.G. Appeals allowed.