Naresh Chander Jain, J. - (1.) THIS judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2404 to 2406, 2407, 2408 and 3211 to 3215 of 1936 as they have been filed against the award of the Tribunal Annexure P 1 by which the claimants have been held entitled to the grant of Rs. 240/ - per marla by way of compensation with solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent for one year from the date of possession and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. Few facts relevant to the controversy may be noted thus:
(2.) ON 13th November, 1975, notification under Section 32 of the Punjab Town improvement Trust Act ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued by Respondent No. 4 for framing a development scheme for residential purposes for which land measuring 44.3 was acquired by the Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Kapurthala. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Kapurthala divided the land into three blocks for the purpose of evaluating the market value of the acquired land. On a reference having been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Tribunal categorised the land into two blocks. The Award of the Tribunal was subjected to challenge in several writ petitions. This Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2567 of 1979 and other connected matters set aside the Award of the Tribunal given at an early stage and remanded the cases for fresh decision on 24th September, 1979. The Tribunal vide its Award Annexure P. 1 assessed the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 250/ - per marla. Both the claimants and the Improvement Trust have filed several wit petitions which, as observed above, are being disposed of by this judgment. After perusing the judgment under challenge, an impression has been left upon this Court that the Tribunal has not dealt with the sale transactions in their right perspective. All the sale transactions have been discarded on the short ground that they pertain to the small pieces of lands ranging from one marla to 10 marla. This may or may not good ground ultimately but other evidence to the effect that some of the sale transactions are from the acquired land itself has not been even referred to in the Award It has come in the statement of certain witnesses which have been read out before me that some transactions of sale are from the acquired land itself. This evidence needed to be appreciated before rejecting the sale transactions. There is no absolute rule that whenever a particular sale transactions pertains to smaller area it must necessarily be rejected. If the sale transaction is relevant and comparable vis -a -vis the acquired land it can always be relied upon for determining the market value even if the sale transaction pertains to the small area. In that situation necessary cuts can be applied In any case, the Court of law has to hold after appreciating the entire evidence as to whether a particular sale transaction is comparable for determining the market value qua the acquired land. This is what precisely has not been done in the instant case. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the Tribunal in the first instance must reappraise the entire evidence documentary as well as oral. It would be more appropriate if each and every sale transaction is referred to separately in the Award and then the conclusion is arrived at. The conclusion can be arrived at not only by making reference to each transaction of sale separately but its cumulative effect can also be seen by the court. The case is, therefore, remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations made above.
(3.) MR . M.L. Sarin Advocate, learned Counsel for the claimants has argued that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1 -A) of the Land Acquisition Act because the Award was given by the Tribunal after the amended provisions were brought on the statute -book. This point would also be gone into by the Tribunal.;