The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to correct errors in the decision-making process of a tribunal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there is an arbitrary exercise of power or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Viney Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 10 Letters Patent Appeals as all the appeals have been directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated August 25, 1989. Whereas seven appeals have been filed by the Hissar Improvement Trust, the remaining three appeals have been filed by the claimants.

2. Vide a notice dated July 9, 1974, issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the "Punjab Act"), land measuring 8686.8 square yards situated in the city of Hissar was sought to be acquired for the Scheme No. 5-A framed under the Punjab Act. Subsequently, the aforesaid scheme was accorded sanction vide a notification dated April 15, 1975 by the competent Government and a notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Act was issued on May 6, 1975, acquiring the said land. It is not in dispute that a notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Act corresponds to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), whereas a notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Act corresponds to Section 6 of the Act.

3. Vide award dated April 26, 1976, Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar assessed the market value of the acquired land. He classified the land in three zones. For the land in Zone-A, measuring 1209 square yards, market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard; with regard to the land falling in Zone-B measuring 402 square yards, the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square yard; and with regard to the remaining land falling in Zone-C, measuring 7075 square yards, the market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. Separate assessment was made with regard to building and super-structure standing on the acquired land. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% (as prevalent at the time). The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector. They sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was, accordingly, referred for assessment to the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Hissar.

4. Vide an award dated September 29, 1987, the Tribunal assessed the market value of the aforesaid acquired land by classifying the acquired land in two belts. For the land falling in belt-A, (fronting the National Highway No. 10, Hissar-Delhi Road about 300 feet in length and 50 feet in depth), the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yard. The remaining land in belt-B was assessed at the rate of Rs. 350/- per square yard. The claimant-landlords were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest as per the amended provisions of the Act. The Improvement Trust, Hissar as well as the claimants challenged the aforesaid award before this Court by filing various writ petitions. All the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and were disposed of by a common judgment dated August 25, 1989. The learned Single Judge did not approve the belting system adopted by the Tribunal and also held that the assessment made by the Tribunal was arbitrary and erroneous. The claimant-landowners were held entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs. 900/- per square yard. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the claimants were allowed with costs. However, the writ petitions filed by the Improvement Trust were dismissed.

5. The Improvement Trust has, accordingly, filed the Letters Patent Appeals challenging the enhancement of compensation by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. The claimants, however, have filed the appeals claiming further enhancement.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Trust has argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law and jurisdiction by interfering in the award of the Tribunal, thereby enhancing the