The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for land acquisition under the Improvement Trust Act, particularly the entitlement to enhanced compensation, solatium, and interest, as well as the interpretation of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 23(1-A) of the Improvement Trust Act.

Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari and for any other writ order or directions modifying the award dated 13th October, 1984, Annexure P/3 to the writ petition, vide which the petitioner was granted compensation for acquisition of his land under the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act.

2. It is not really necessary for this Court to give the facts in greater detail. Suffice to note that the land was acquired for the development Scheme No. 19 as formulated by the Government of Haryana, vide notification dated 7.9.1977. Upon acquisition of the land, the Collector determined the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square yard, vide award dated 31st March, 1997. Not satisfied with the extent of the compensation awarded to the owners, they preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. This was allowed, vide award dated 13th October, 1984, Annexure P/3 to the writ petition.

3. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition claiming that he is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard along with 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% thereafter till payment of the enhanced amount.

4. Learned President Tribunal, Jind Improvement Trust, Jind, while enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 40/- per square as well as dealing with other claim of the claimants held as under :-

"The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.9.1975. It has, therefore, to be seen that as to what was the market value of the similar lands in the adjoining area at the relevant time. The land mentioned in both the judgments Ex. P-2 and P-3 is adjacent to the land in dispute and was acquired vide the same notification. Obviously, therefore, both these judgments serve as a good example in order to determine the amount of compensation in the present case. There are no reasons nor there is any material on the record from which it could be made out that the petitioner was not entitled to the rate awarded to the land owners of the adjoining lands in both the cases mentioned in the copies of judgments Ex. P-2 and P-3. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the price of Rs. 40/- per square yard instead of Rs. 20/- per square yard as awarded by the Collector. This issue is accordingly determined in favour of the petitioner.

Relief

7. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 40/- per square yard for the land in dispute besides 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking of possession by the respondent-Trust. Further the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which the possession was taken by the respondent-Trust till realisation.

Announced in open Court

Dated 13.10.1984

Sd/-

President Tribunal

Improvement Trust, Jind

13.10.1984."

5. As is clear from the above recorded findings the petitioner had claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard and that was granted by the Tribunal. In other words, complete and full relief in regard to enhancement of compensation as prayed by the claimant was granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to claim any further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard for the first time in this writ petition. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also fairly conceded that it will not be permissible in law. Further the petitioner/claimant is not entitled to the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, in view of the settled position of law and benefits of the statutory provisions would be a