MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                    MAJOR PAKHAR SINGH ATWAL AND ORS.                                  A
                                    v.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                   JANUARY 24, 1995

                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)                               B

              Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 18--Punjab Town Im-
        provement Act, 1922-Acquisition of land for eXpansion of municipal
        town-Award made by Collector binds Improvement Tmst-Claim for en-
        hanced compensation-claimant to establish that amount awarded by Land          C
        Acquisition Officer is inadequate-Mutation entries-Inadmissible evidence--
        Sale instances referred to in award of Land Acquisition Officer-Not proved--
        They can neither be relied on nor can be looked into as evidence-Award of
        Tribunal not made part of evidence before cpurt-Court not to look into that
__...   award.
                                                                                       D
              Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal-Land Acquisition case--
        Market value detennined by Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence--
        Supreme Court not to interfere with compensation so detennined on appeal
        under Article 136.

              Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984-Additional benefits-         E
        Notification published on 1-8-1975-Award of collector dated 27.1.1977-
        Possession of lands taken in 1977 and 1979-Benefits of enhanced solatium
        and interest-Allowed-Additional amount u/s 23(1-A}-Disallowed.

              Certain Land was acquired for the public purpose of expansion of
        municipal town under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 by publi-           F
        cation of the Notification dated 1-8-1975. The Land Acquisition Collector
        by his award dated 27-1-1977 determined the compensation. On reference,
        the Tribunal by its award dated 2-3-1984 enhanced the compensation. The
        High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal in the Writ Petition filed by
        the claimants for further enhancement. Hence this appeal.                      G
             . The claimant contended that in a subsequent award, the Tribunal
        had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 800 per maria.
        Both the lands were acquired under the same Notification and therefore,
        the appellant also was entitled to the same rate. It was contended that the
        award in that case had since been challanged by the respondent in the High     H
                                            535
    536                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Court, t~is matter might be remitted to the High Court for reconsideration
    on the basis of the subsequent award. It was also alleged that even otherwise
    the sale transactions indicated in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer
    showed that the lands in the neighbourhood had higher market value than
    the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the acquired lands and that,
    therefore, the appellant also was entitied to th~ higher compensation at the
B   same rates and for additional benefits awardable under the Land Acquisi-
    tion (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984.

        The respondent contended that the appellants were not entitled to
  any furhter enhancement. The sale instances referred to in the award of the
C Land Acquisition Officer were not proved by adducing any evidence before
  the arbitrators and that, therefore, it was not a matter for the Supreme
  Court to reconsider the evidence. It was alleged that the award of the
  Tribunal was challenged in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
  Constitution and when the High Court itself was not competent to reap-
  preciate the evidence and had come to a different conclusion than what was
D held by the Tribunal on fact, this Court also should not embark upon
  appreciation of evidence and come to a diferent conclusion. He further
  contended that the award of the Tribunal was the subject matter of the Writ
  Petition and since that Writ Petition was pending, it was not open to this
  Court to reappreciate the evidence and give enhanced compensation on
E that basis.
          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

         HELD : 1.1. The award is an offer and whatever amount was deter-
                                                                                    .,...
   mined by the Collector is an offer and binds the Improvement Trust.
F However, the Collector also is required to collect the relevent material and
   award compensation on the basis of settled principles of determination of
   the market value of an acquired land. The Improvement Trust, therefore,
   cannot go behind the i:'ward made by the Collector. Reference is not an
   appeal. It is an original proceeding. It is for the claimants to seek the
G determination of proper compensation by producing sale deed and examin-
  ·ing the vendors or the vendees as to passing of consideration among them,
   the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired lands, similarly of the lands
   sold and acquired and also by adducing other relevant and acceplable
   evidence. In this case, for the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act, the Tribunal
   was constituted. Therefore, if the claimants intended to seek hig!1er 'com-
H pensation to the acquired land, the burden was on them to e~lish by
                  MAJORP.K.ATWALv. STATE OF PB.                          537

proof that the compensation gr.anted by the Land Acquisition Officer was         A
inadequate and they were entitled to higher compensation. That could be
established only by adduction of evidence of the comparable sale transac··
tions of the land acc1uired or the lands in the neighbourhood possessed of
similar potentiality or advantages. Unfortunately, in this case, no witness
had been examined in proof of the prevailing market value of the lands in
the neighourhood. Only mutation entries were relied upon. They were inad·        B
missible evidence and could not be relied upon. In the award itself, the Land
Acquisition Oficer referred to the sale transactions. Since the Land Ac·
quisition Officer was an authority under the Act, he collected the evidence
to determine the compensation as an offer. Though that award may be a
material evidence to be looked into, the sale transactions referred to therein   c
cannot be relied upon implicitely, if the party seeking enhancement resists
the claim by adducing evidence independently before the Court or the
Tribunal. In this case, since no steps were taken to place the sale transac·
tion referred in the award. So they could neither be relied upon nor could
be looked into as evidence. (540-D·H, 541-A·B]
                                                                                 D
       1.2. There was no other evidence except the award dated 5.5.1987
given by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, no application had been filed for
receiving it as additional evidence under order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Unless it
formed part of evidence on record, it could not be looked into as evidence
before Court. Even otherwise, when admittedly, the respondent had already        E
challenged the validity of that award in the High Court, no opinion could
be expressed on the correctness of that award. But that was not a ground
for this Court to remand the matter to the High Court for reconsideration.
(541-C·D]

                                                                                 F
       1.3. Under the Act no right of appeal is provided to the High Court.
Therefore, when the High Court is dealing with the matter under Article
226, it is settled law that it cannot reappreciate the evidence and come to
its own conclusion. It has to consider whether the conclusion reached by
the Tribunal was warranted and justifiable on the evidence placed before
it and whether settled legal principles of law in determining compensaiton       G
were taken into consideration and if the conclusions reached were unsus-
tainable on settled principles of law. The High Court, if it finds the award
to be wholly unsustainable, it may be open to it to remit the matter to the
Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal also should determine the
compensation on legal, valid, reliable and acceptable relevant evidence and      H
    538                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A not based on feats of imagination. The Tribunal, if aw:ards compensation
    at whim or arbitrarily, apart from it being a misconduct, the award would
    get vitiated by error apparent on· the face of the record. When such is the
    position, this Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence and
    come to a different conclusion and record a finding whether the market
B   value determined by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. [541•E-H]

         1.4. The market value determined by the Tribunal was based on
  appreciation of evidence and it had taken settled legal principles into
  consideration to determine compensation. This court, therefore, could not
  interfere with compensation so determined on an appeal under Article 136.
C But the Claimants were entitled to the additional benefits of solatium at
  30% on the enhanced compensation. Possession was taken of some lands
  on 17.7.77 and rest of the lands on 31.7.1979. Therefore, the claimants were
  entitled to interest at 9% from the dat~s of taking possession for one year
  and after expiry of one year at 15% per annum till the date of payment or
  deposit of the additional compensation before the Tribunal, whichever was
D earlier. [545-B-C]
        1.5 As regards payment of additional amount at 12% per annum
  under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the claimants were not entitled to it since
  Notification was published on 1.8.1975 and the award ofthe Collector was
E made on 27.1.1977. [542-D]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 874 of
    1986.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.84 of the Punjab &
F   Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1727of1984.

            V.C. Mahajan and P.N. Puri for the Appellants.

            Dhruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta for the Respondent.

G           H.S. Munjral for G.K. Bansal for the State.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This appeal by special leave, arises from the order of the Division
    Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 1727/84, dated
H   25.7.1984.
      {
                           MAJORP.K.ATWALv. STATE OF PB.                       539

                 A total extent of 821 kanals (1 kanal equivalent to 500 sq. yds) of A
          land was acquired for the public pu~pose 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 per maria
          (one maria is equivalent to 25 sq. yds.) for 'C' class lands, at Rs. 250 per B
          maria for 'D' class lands. On reference, the Tribunal by its award dated
          2.3.1984 enhanced the compensation at Rs. 800 per maria for 'A' class
          lands, at Rs. 750 per maria for 'B' class lands, at Rs. 625 per maria for 'C'
          class lands and Rs. 500 per maria 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 C
          special leave.

                 Shri V.C. Mahajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
          claimant raised three-fold contention. First, he contended that in a sub-
          seqent award dated May 5, 1987 for the 'C' class and 'D' class lands the D
          Tribunal has respectively awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 800 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, E
          he contended that even otherwise the sale transactions indicated in the
          award of the Land Acquisition Officer do show that the lands in the
          neighbourhood 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 p
          additional benefits awardable under the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
          Act 68 of 1984.

                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 G
          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 reap- H
    540                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A preciate 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
B 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.
  Ba/want Singh & Ors., A.LR. (1992) S.C. 2214, the claimants would be
  entitled to the additional benefits of the Amendment Act to the extent of
C enhanced solatium and interest but, not to payment of the additional
  amount under Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act.

        If we have regard to the above rival contentions, the facts and           ·-l

  circumstances of this case do not permit our interference with the order
D 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 Improve-
  ment Trust. However, the Collector also is required to collect the relevant
  material and award compensation on the basis of settled principles of
  determination of the market value of an acquired land. The Improvement.
  Trust, therefore, cannot go behind the award made by the Co~ector.
E Reference is not an appeal. It is an original proceeding. It is for~ the
  claimants to seek the determination of proper compensation by producing
  sale deeds and examining the venders or the vendees as to passing of
  consideration among them, the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired
  lands, similarly of the lands sold and acquired and also by adduction of
p other relevant and acceptable evidence. In this case, for the Court under        ..
  Sec. 18 of the Act, the Tribunal is constituted. Therefore, if the claimants
  intend to seek higher compensation to the acquired land, the burden is on
  them to establish by proof that the compensation granted by the Land ·
  Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they are entitled to higher compen-
  sation. That could be established only by adduction of evidence of the
G comparable sale transactions of the land acquired or the lands in the
  neighbourhood possessed of similar potentiality or advantages. Unfor-
  tunately, in this case, no witness had b~en examined in proof of the
  prevailing market value of the lands or in the neighbourhood. Only muta-
  tion entries were relied upon. They are inadmissible evidence and cannot
H be relied upon. No doubt, in the award itself, the Land Acquisition Officer
                          MAJOR P.K. ATWALv. STATE OF PB.                       541

         referred to the sale transactions. Since the Land Acquisition Officer is an A
         authority under the Act, he collected the evidence to determine the com-
         pensation as an offer. Though that award may be a material evidence to
         be looked into, but the sale transactions referred to therein cannot be
         relied upon implicitly, if the party seeking enhancement resists the claim
         by adducing evidence independently before the Court or the Tribunal. In B
         this case, since no steps were taken to place the sale transaction referred
         in the award, they cannot be evidence. So they can neither be relied upon
    +
         nor can be looked into as evidence.

               If we ignore the sale instances, .we do not have any other evidence
         except the award dated 5.5.1987 given by the Tnbunal. Unfortunately, no. · C
         application has been filed for receiving it as additional evidence under
         Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Unless it forms part of evidence on record, we
         cannot look into that award evidence before Court. Event otherwise, when.
         admittedily, the respondent had already challenged the validity of that
         award in the High Court, we express no opinion on the correctness of that D
         regard. But that is not a ground for this Court to remand the matter to the
         High Court for reconsideration, as asked for.

               We are, therefore., of the view that there is no case made out for
         increasing the compensation. It is also to be seen that under the Act no
         right of appeal is provided to the High Court, Therefore, when the High E
         Court is dealing with the matter under Article 226, it is settled law that it
         cannot reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. It has
         to consider whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was warranted
         and justifiable on the evidence placed before it and whether settled legal
         principles of law in determining compensation were taken into considera- F
         tion and 'if the conclusions reached were unsustainable on settled prin-
         ciples of law. The High Court if finds the award to be wholly unsustainable,
         it may be open to it to remit the _matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
         The Tribunal also should determine the compensation on legal, valid,
         reliable and acc~ptable relevant evidence and not based on feats of im-
         agination. The Tribunal, if awards compensation at whim or arbitrarily, G
.;. 'f   apart from it being a miscondunct, the award would get vitiated by error
         apparent on the face of the record. When such is the position, this Court
         connot embark upon appreciation of evidence and come to a different
         conclusion and record a finding whether the market value detemined by
         the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable.                                     H
                                                                                    )


    542                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A          From the evidence, it is clear an~ we hold that the market value
    determined by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence and it has
    taken settled legal priciples into consideration to determine compensation.
    We therefore, cannot interfere with compensation so determined on an
    appeal under Article 136. But the claimants are entitled to the additional
B   benefits of solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation. Possession was
    taken of some lands on 17.8.77 and rest of the lands on 31.7.1979. There-
    fore, the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% from the dates of taking
    possession for one year and after expiry of one year, at 15% per annum till
    the date of payment or deposit of the additional compensation before the
    Tribunal, whichever is earlier.
c         As regards payment of additional amount at 12% per annum under
    Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the claimants are not entitled since Notification
    was published on 1.8.1975 and the award of the Collector was made on
    27.1.1977.

D         The appeal is accordingly allowed only to the extent of allowing
    additional solatium and interest as indicated above. No costs.

    A.G.                                                        Appeal allowed.