Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.: - The questions that are raised in these appeals by certificate by Mr. B. Sen on behalf of the appellants are these: -

(1) Section 59 (a) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (Punjab Act 4 of 1922) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2) The Tribunal took absolutely a wrong principle into consideration in determining the compensation of the lands acquired.

(3) The Tribunal has not applied its own rule as to the rate of compensation uniformly to the different appellants.

2. The facts of one appeal (Civil Appeal No. 345 of 1971) may be sufficient for our purpose. Land measuring 165 acres including the appellant s land measuring 6 bighas, 4 biswas and 17 biswasi, comprised in various khasra numbers situated in the revenue estate of Piru Banda within the municipal limits of Ludhiana Municipal Committee, was acquired for a development scheme of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (hereinafter called the Trust) styled as Model Town Extension Scheme No. 1. A notification under Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter called the Improvement Act), which is analogous to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Acquisition Act) was published on September 16, 1960. The present appeal relates to the acquisition of the appellant s land in village Piru Banda only. The Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust Ludhiana, made his award on March 31, 1965, with regard to the said land. Aggrieved by the said award the appellant and other land owners made separate applications under Section 18 of the Acquisition Act for making a reference to the Tribunal constituted under the Improvement Act (hereinafter respondent No. 2). The cases were then referred to the Tribunal. The second respondent took up all the references together and delivered a common judgment on October 16, 1968. The Collector had earlier classified the land acquired under three categories, namely, belts A , B and C fixing the price for valuation at the rate of Rs. 60/-, Rs. 40/-and Rs. 20/- per square yard respectively. The Tribunal in the case of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 345 of l971 under discussion, modified the award to the extent that the price of the land comprised in belt C was raised from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 30/- per square yard while the price for the area covered by belt B was upheld. The appellant challenged the order High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court following an earlier decision dismissed the writ petition. The High Court however, granted a certificate to apnea) to this Court under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

3. With regard to the first point, it is submitted that there is no guideline in the Improvement Act itself for determining compensation. However, it is ad misted that by Section 59 of the improvement Act the Acquisition Act is made applicable with certain modifications for the purpose of acquiring land for the Trust. It is pointed out that by Section 59 (a) of the Improvement Act the Tribunal is not deemed to be the Court under the Acquisition Act for the purpose of Section .54 of the latter Act and under Section .59 (d) the award of the Tribunal is deemed to be the award of the court under the Acquisition Act and shall also be final. It is, therefore, contended that the two rights of appeal, which are available uncle, Section 54 of the Acquisition Act, are denied when land is acquired under the Improvement Act. Right of appeal being denied in cases of acquisition by the Improvement Trust, Section 59 (a) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the land acquired for the Trust is as much for public purpose as acquisition of the same for public purpose under the Acquisition Act. There is, according to counsel, a clear discrimination when land is chosen to be acquired under the Improvement Act when it could have been done under the Acquisition Act. It is submitted that there is, therefore, an infringement of fundamental right