M.M. Kumar, Kumar, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of a bunch of 11 petitions* because similar question of law and facts have been raised. The challenge in these petitions is to various awards dated 17.9.1997, 27.8.1997, 9.2.2000, 17.5.2000 and 27.9.2000 passed by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (for brevity, the Tribunal), fixing the market value of the property in dispute in the reference applications filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 1894 Act).
(2.) Keeping in view the controversy in hand, we do not feel the necessity of noticing detailed facts of these petitions. It would be suffice to mention that the land belonging to the petitioner(s) was acquired under the development Scheme(s) framed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar (for brevity, the Trust), which were framed under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector passed separate awards granting compensation after assessing the market value of the land belonging to the petitioner(s). Against the award passed by the Collector, the land owner-petitioner(s) filed reference applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation and other statutory benefits. The references were referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the references by either upholding the award passed by the Collector or by making modifications. Being dis-satisfied with the award(s) passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner(s) approached this Court by filing various petitions, which are detailed as under: JUDGEMENT_304_LAWS(P&H)11_2011(1).html
(3.) During the course of arguments, the issue regarding legal authenticity of the impugned awards allegedly passed by the Tribunal, has been agitated. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has drawn our attention to the awards and argued that the same have been signed only by the President of the Tribunal and not by other members/Assessors. It has been argued that since the impugned awards have not been passed by the Tribunal, the same are liable to be set aside being unsustainable in the eyes of law without even going into the merits of the case.;