- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3274 to 3277 and 3265 to 3270 of 1985 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
(2.) For facility of reference, facts mentioned in C.W.P. No. 3274 of 1985 may briefly be stated hereunder. The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2, acquired land measuring 550 acres situated in the revenue estate of villages Sunet and Jawaddi, tehsil and district Ludhiana, for the development of a residential colony. A notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act (hereinafter called the Improvement Act), which is equivalent to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the said acquisition was published on 12.2.1971. The petitioner's land which is situate in the same area was also acquired. Award No. 2 of 1974 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector respondent No. 3 on 19.4.1974, whereby he assessed the compensation payable to some of the landowners including the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 classified the land in two blocks, i.e. 'A' and 'B', taking into account the location of the land acquired alongwith Ferozepur-Ludhiana main road. He further sub-divided Block 'A' into belts 'A', 'B' and 'C' and assessed compensation for land falling in these belts at the rate of Rs. 300/-, Rs. 220/- and Rs. 130/- per marla respectively. Block 'B' was also further sub-divided into belts 'A' and 'B' and compensation at the rate of Rs. 230/- and Rs. 110/- per marla respectively was awarded besides solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the land so assessed. Some compensation for trees and standing structures was also awarded. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of respondent No. 3, the petitioner sought reference by filing application under Section 18 of the Act claiming Rs. 40/- per square yard as compensation for the acquired land besides claiming damages under Section 48-A of the Act and compensation for tubewell, trees, super-structures, dislocation, severance etc. Reference was accordingly made by respondent No. 3 to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana, constituted under the Improvement Act. The Tribunal respondent No. 1 made its award dated 19.12.1984 Annexure P.1 whereby the market value in respect of the land of the petitioner has been assessed at Rs. 236/- per marla. Solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% have also been awarded by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Tribunal Annexure P.1 on various grounds including that of inadequacy of compensation awarded by it and for a writ of mandamus directing it to pay the compensation claimed by him. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed written statement opposing the prayer made in the petition. It has been contended that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence on the point of compensation, which has been evaluated by respondent No. 1, was within its exclusive jurisdiction and that this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot re-evaluate the same. The other contentions made by the petitioner on merits have also been stoutly refuted.
(3.) Before I enter into the merits of the petition, it is necessary to notice the settled law regarding the confines within which the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised by this Court. The basic authority on the point is Syed Yakoob V. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 477, wherein it was inter-alia, held as follows :- "A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.";