M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12708 to 12717 of 1999 as common question of law and fact are involved in these petitions. For the purposes of this order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 12708 of 1999. This petition is directed against order dated 11.9.1997 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jalandhar declining the re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An application for re-determination of the award has been made by the petitioner Trust.
(2.) THE matter had earlier come up before a Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2002 which reads thus : "No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 (claimants) despite publication. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as the award has been signed only by the President, it was non-est in the eyes of law and, therefore, not enforceable. We put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the claimants were, infact, entitled to the benefits of enhanced compensation. It is not denied by the learned counsel that the claimants were entitled to the enhanced compensation. We are, therefore, disinclined to interfere in this petition in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed." The petitioner had challenged the afore-mentioned order in appeal and the Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.11.2005 passed in C.A. Nos. 6970-6979 of 2005 (Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Improvement Trust Tribunal, Jalandhar and others) held as under : "It is brought to our notice that the Tribunal which assesses the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act consists of three members namely, the President and two Assessors. This is pursuant to Section 60 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. It was averred in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition that the impugned award dated 11.9.1977 was assessed, prepared and signed only by the President of the Tribunal and not by the majority of the members. The award made by the Tribunal has been brought to our notice and it has been emphasised that apart from the fact that it has been signed only by the President, even the language of the award indicates that the award has been heard and made by the President only. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. There is no discussion in the order of the High Court regarding the aforesaid averment. Since there are clear averments in the writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the award, the High Court ought to have atleast briefly noticed the submissions urged before it and passed an order. Unfortunately, neither was any counter affidavit filed in the High Court, nor any counter affidavit has been filed in this Court. In the circumstances, we consider it proper that the order of the High Court should be set aside and the matters be remitted to the High Court for disposal of the writ Petition in accordance with law after notice to the respondents. The order of the High Court dated 1.4.2002 in CWP Nos. 12708-12717 of 1999 is set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law."
(3.) A perusal of the record shows that the respondents have been served by publication and no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is, however, pertinent to notice that the Tribunal did not issue any notice to respondent No. 2 for deciding the legal question raised before it by the petitioner as is evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.1997 (Annexure P.1);