IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – How much deductions should be made would depend on nature of land, its topography, special features and state of its development so as to make it suitable for the purpose for which it is acquired – It is essentially a kind of guess work courts are expected to undertake.

JUDGMENT

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. This batch of 12 appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.20433/2009 and others (in all 40 writ petitions). Before the High Court, 14 writ petitions were filed by the land owners and 26 writ petitions were filed by the Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the land owners by enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.2,000/- per marla and granted all statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The High Court also granted the benefit of Rs.400/- at 10% per marla to the assessed amount for two years. Meaning thereby, the High Court accorded the total amount of compensation payable to the land owners at Rs.2,400/- per marla along with all statutory benefits available under the Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Improvement Trust.

2. The Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust (Respondent No.3 herein) prepared a scheme for the purpose of Development Scheme (residential) under Sections 24, 25 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 in an area admeasuring 291 kanals 7 marlas situated within the Municipal limits in village Purhiran and Sutehri. Out of the said land, 230 kanals 9 marlas belonged to the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur, which were taken over by the Respondent No.2, Land Acquisition Collector (Improvement Trust) through negotiations. To acquire the rest of the lands admeasuring 59 kanals 3 marlas, a notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Act was issued on 29.07.1994. After completing the formalities of hearing the objections etc, the notification under Section 41 of the Improvement Act was issued on 10/14.07.1995. The respondent/ Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 11.07.1997 awarding the compensation at Rs 1.07 lakhs per acre for Chahi (Rs.668.75 per marla) and Rs.1.10 lakh per acre for the remaining kinds of lands (Rs.687.50 per marla) for village Purhiran and Rs.1.50 lakh per acre for all kinds of land (Rs.714.30 per marla) for the village Sutehri. The Land Acquisition Collector also assessed Rs. 46,61,760/- for 52 structures/buildings standing at the spot, Rs.70,300/- towards the cost of tube wells, Rs.30,069/- towards fruit bearing trees and Rs.37,824.54 paisa towards compensation of rest of the trees existing at the spot. The Land Acquisition Collector further awarded the statutory benefits under the said Act. The Land owners being dissatisfied by the award passed by the respondent (LAC) had preferred reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court/Tribunal vide common award dated 17.04.2009 enhanced the compensation from Rs.668.75/- per marla to Rs.1337.50 per marla for the land Chahi and from Rs.687.50/- per marla to Rs. 1375/- per marla for remaining kinds of land in village Purhiran, and enhanced the compensation from Rs.714.30 to Rs.1428.60 per marla for all kinds of land for the village Sutehri. The Tribunal further awarded the statutory benefits under the Act.

3. The petitioners/land owners being dissatisfied by the said award passed by the Reference Court/Tribunal, preferred fourteen Civil writ petitions before the High Court. The respondent Improvement Trust also filed 26 writ petitions challenging the said award passed by the said Tribunal. The High Court disposed of all the writ petitions vide the impugned common judgment as stated hereinabove.

4. The Learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Patwalia for the appellants submitted that the lands in question were being used both for commercial and residential purposes and the High Court had erred in not relying upon the sale deeds executed for the shops prior to the date of acquisition, which showed continuous rise in the prices.

5. He further submitted that the High Court had committed gross error in applying one third cut o