( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave, arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 1727/84, dated 25-7-1984.

( 2 ) A total extent of 821 kanals (1 kanal equivalent to 500 sq. yds.) of land was acquired for the public purpose of expansion of municipal town, Phagwara under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 by publication of the Notification dated 1-8-1975. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 27-1-1977 determined the compensation at Rs. 313. 00 per marla (one marla is equivalent to 25 sq. yds.) for c class lands, at Rs. 250. 00 per marla for d class lands. On reference, the Tribunal by its award dated 2-3-1984 enhanced the compensation at Rs. 800. 00 per marla for a class lands, at Rs. 750. 00 per marla for b class lands, at Rs. 625. 00 per marla c class lands and Rs. 500. 00 per marla for d class lands. In the Writ Petition filed by the claimants for further enhancement for c and d class lands the High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal. Thus this appeal, by special leave.

( 3 ) SHRI V. C. Mahajan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the claimant raised three-fold contention. First, he contended that in a subsequent award dated 5/05/1985 for the c class and d class lands the Tribunal has respectively awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 and Rs. 800. 00 per marla. Both the lands were acquired under the same Notification and that, therefore, the appellant also is entitled to the same rate. Secondly, it contended that the award in that case had since been challenged by the respondent in the High Court, this matter may be remitted to the High Court for re-consideration on the basis of the subsequent award. Thirdly, he contended that even otherwise the sale transactions indicated in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer do show that the lands in the neighborhood have higher market value than the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the acquired lands and that, therefore, the appellant also is entitled to the higher compensation at the same rates and for the additional benefits awardable under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984.

( 4 ) SHRI Dhruv Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contended rather vehemently that the appellants are not entitled to any further enhancement. The sale instances referred to in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer were not proved by adducing any evidence before the arbitrators and that, therefore, it is not a matter for this Court to reconsider the evidence. He also contended that the award of the Tribunal was challenged in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the High Court itself was not competent to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that was reached by the Tribunal on fact, this Court also should not embark upon appreciation of evidence and come to a different conclusion. He further contended that the award of the Tribunal, dated 5-5-1987 is the subject-matter of the Writ Petition, wherein,the Tribunal has taken irrelevant facts into consideration which cannot be sustained. Since that Writ Petition is pending, it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and give enhanced compensation on that basis. However, he fairly conceded that in view of the judgment of this Court in Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Balwant Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2214, the claimants would be entitled to the additional benefits of the Amendment Act to the extent of enhanced solatium and interest but, not to payment of the additional amount under Sec. 23 (1-A) of the Act.

( 5 ) IF we have regard to the above rival contentions, the facts and circumstances of this case do not permit our interference with the order under appeal. It is now settled law that the award is an offer and whatever amount was determined by the Collector is an offer and binds the Improvement Trust. However, the Collector also is required to collect the relevant material and