1995 (5) TMI 275 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the award made by the President of the Tribunal.
2. Correctness of the amendment of the writ petition claimed enhanced compensation allowed by the High Court.
3. Omission to deduct developmental charges.
4. Consideration of irrelevant sale deeds.
5. Omission to consider two relevant sale deeds.
6. Errors in calculation of the compensation.

Summary:

1. Validity of the award made by the President of the Tribunal:
The primary issue was whether the Chairman alone could pass the award under the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922. The High Court upheld the validity of the award based on the doctrine of acquiescence and the precedent set in Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR (1981) Punjab & Haryana 349. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal must consist of three members, namely, the President and two assessors, and their presence and participation are mandatory. The award made solely by the President was deemed invalid as it did not constitute the award of the Tribunal.

2. Correctness of the amendment of the writ petition claimed enhanced compensation allowed by the High Court:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the writ petition for enhanced compensation. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue in detail as the primary focus was on the validity of the Tribunal's award.

3. Omission to deduct developmental charges:
The appellant contended that the High Court failed to deduct developmental charges while determining compensation. This issue was not addressed in detail by the Supreme Court due to the invalidity of the Tribunal's award.

4. Consideration of irrelevant sale deeds:
The appellant argued that the High Court considered irrelevant sale deeds in determining compensation. The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail due to the primary focus on the Tribunal's composition and validity of the award.

5. Omission to consider two relevant sale deeds:
The appellant contended that the High Court omitted to consider two relevant sale deeds. This issue was not explored in detail by the Supreme Court due to the invalidity of the Tribunal's award.

6. Errors in calculation of the compensation:
The appellant claimed errors in the calculation of compensation. The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail due to the primary focus on the Tribunal's composition and the validity of the award.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the awards of the Tribunal, and directed the State Government of Haryana to constitute the Tribunal as per the Act. The Tribunal is to decide the disputes within six months. The Court declared that any award made solely by the President of the Tribunal from this date shall be void. The appeals were allowed with no costs.