Entitlement to enhanced compensation under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the applicability of interest for delay in filing the petition.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 01.10.1986 passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal') determining the amount of compensation.

2. The land belonging to the late father of the petitioner was acquired vide notification dated 08.08.1976 issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short 'the Act'). Notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued on 24.11.1978. Though the other land owners filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the award of the Tribunal and seeking further enhancement of the compensation, however, the petitioner could not avail of the remedy as his father had expired on 27.01.1982, prior to the award of the Tribunal. A bunch of petitions seeking enhancement of the compensation were decided by this Court vide detailed judgment in CWP No.4890 of 1986 titled 'Prem Gupta Vs. The Improvement Trust and another decided on 16.05.2006 enhancing the compensation from different rates awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.39/- per square yard along with interest and solatium.

3. The claim in this petition is that the land of the father of the petitioner having been acquired by the same notification, therefore, he is also entitled to the same amount of compensation. Explaining the delay in filing the writ petition, he submitted that after the death of his father Lachhman Dass on 27.01.1982, there was a dispute amongst three brothers about his inheritance. Two other brothers projected a Will dated 15.01.1982 executed by Lachhman Dass, which the petitioner was disputing. As a result of the dispute, the amount of compensation belonging to late Lachhman Dass was not withdrawn by any of the legal heirs. Other two brothers filed a petition for issuance of succession certificate, which was dismissed on 04.05.2012. The judgment of the Trial Court was upheld in appeal vide judgment dated 26.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Collector vide letter dated 20.07.2015 requesting for release of the compensation to the extent of 1/3rd share and the amount was paid to him. The prayer is for grant of enhanced compensation in terms of the judgment of this Court in Prem Gupta's case (supra).

4. In support of the plea that delay in filing the case seeking enhanced compensation should not come in the way of the land owners and he should be treated at par, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Samiyathal and others Vs. Spl. Tahsildar and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 441; Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. Lrs. Etc Vs. Haryana State and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 507 and Imrat Lal and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 437.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that bonafides of the petitioner are in dispute. Nothing has been produced on record to show that any amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioner. The writ petition is highly belated.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

7. Undisputed facts on record are that the big chunk of land measuring 256 acres was acquired vide notification dated 08.08.1976 issued under Section 36 of the Act, which was followed by notification dated 24.11.1978 issued under Section 42 thereof. The award was announced by the Collector on 12.06.1980. Dissatisfied with the said award, the land owners approached the Tribunal. At the time of acquisition, the land was recorded in the name of late Lachhman Dass, father of the petitioner. He died on 27.01.1982. As there was dispute amongst the brothers, no proceedings for further enhancement of compensation could be taken by them. This Court in Prem Gupta's case (supra), enhanced the compensation to Rs.39/- per square yard for the entire land. The land owners were also held entitled for solatium and interest. The petitioner is also claiming the same amou