IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 169 of 2001 Date of decision: 25.11.2008 State of H.P. and Anr. ... Appellants Versus Balak Ram and Anr. ….. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. H.C. Sharma and Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, dated 10.12.1999. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a proclamation under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the appellants on 15.11.1990 in regard to acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners, situate in village Chamrouth for construction of Matiayana-Mauri Road. This notification was duly published in two daily newspapers dated 23.12.1990. Thereafter, the land was acquired and objections were filed by the petitioners and others before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Collector 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 made an award and awarded the compensation to the right holders including the petitioners. The petitioners filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement on various grounds and the learned Additional District Judge vide its impugned judgment had allowed the petition and awarded enhanced compensation alongwith interest etc. An appeal was preferred by the appellants. I have heard Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants and Mr. H.C. Sharma and Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocates, for the respondents and have gone through the record. It is clear from a perusal of the grounds of appeal that various grounds were taken by the State in challenging the award made by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Deputy Advocate General had confined her arguments only on one point and, therefore, the other points shall be deemed to have not been pressed. The only point canvassed before this Court was that the learned Additional District Judge had granted interest under the provisions of the Act from the date of taking of possession, though according to the decision of the Apex Court, the same could not have been awarded prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. To buttress her point, the learned Deputy Advocate General had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein the Apex Court had clearly held that the interest cannot be awarded prior to the issuance of publication of notification 3 whether the possession is taken prior to it or later. No ruling to the contrary was cited by the learned counsel for the respondents on this point. According to the decision, the interest has to be awarded from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the learned Additional District Judge granted the same from the date of taking of possession, therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted on this ground and the interest as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, shall be payable from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and not prior to it. Before I dispose of this appeal, I may point out that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the case should be remanded back to the Reference Court to determine the compensation for rent and damages for use and occupation from the date of taking of the possession till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. To substantiate this plea, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in L.A.C. and another Vs. Avinder Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 891. A perusal of this decision shows that the case was remanded to the Reference Court to redetermine the compensation relying upon some decisions. However, neither those decisions were cited during the course of arguments not it was pointed out as to the law laid down in those decisions. To my mind, the facts of the case are not very clear as to whether Cross Objection has also been filed by the respondents or not, claiming compensation for rent and damages and until and unless such a plea was raised by the respondents by filing Cross 4 Objection or Cross Appeal, prima facie it appears that such plea cannot be considered in the absence of anything on record. In my view, simply because a plea has been raised, is not sufficient to hold that the case should be remanded back until and unless the complete facts were brought on record as to whether any Cross Objections were filed or what should be the criteria for remanding the case for fresh decision after so many years. The decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Deputy Advocate General, which is a three Judge decision does not point out that the case should be remanded back in such circumstances for determination of the rent and damages for use and occupation for the earlier period. Therefore, this plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the appeal filed by the appellants is required to be allowed, which is partly allowed and interest shall be payable as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and not from the date of taking of possession. The Land Acquisition Collector shall be liable to make the payment accordingly. ( V.K. Ahuja ), November 25, 2008 Judge (BSS)