IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No._322 of 2000 along with RFA Nos.323, 324 and 325 of 2000 Date of decision: 30.6.2008 [ For title, please see page over leaf ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellants : ( Please see over leaf) For the Respondents : ( Please see over leaf) Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) . This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos.322, 323,324 and 325 of the 2000, arising out of common award dated 29.2.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Land Reference No.6-A/4 of 1998, Land Reference. No.4-A/4 of 1998, Land Reference No.1- A/4 of 1998 and Land Reference No.5-A/4 of 1998, respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Public Works Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, for acquiring land for public purpose, for construction of Kunihar-Bainj Ki Hatti Brahampukhar Shelly road issued notification on 9.10.1992 under Section 4 of the ________________________ Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short ‘Act’), which was published in the official Gazette on 7.11.1992. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short Collector) announced the award on 4.1.1995. The Collector awarded Rs.35,000/- per bigha as compensation of acquired land irrespective of classification. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation as per classification. They have submitted that no compensation for fruit bearing trees and khair trees which were standing on the acquired land was paid, similarly no compensation was paid for houses, dangas and puccca irrigation channels. The land owners claimed compensation on account of damage to their adjacent land due to construction of road on the acquired land. The acquired land is very near to industrial township of Darlaghat and Bilaspur. The market value of kuhal and cultivated land is more than Rs. 2 lacs per bigha, Rs.1.70 lacs per bigha for ghasani and Rs.3 lacs per bigha for Bagicha. Market value of each khair tree is more than Rs.5000/- per tree. 3. The respondents contested the claim of land owners and submitted that learned Collector had given just and reasonable compensation and therefore, the land owners are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. The reference petitions were consolidated vide order dated 3.12.1998 in Land Reference Case No.6-A/4 of 1998. The learned District Judge by common award dated 29.2.2000 enhanced the market value of the acquired land to …3… Rs.84,000/- per bigha. The learned District Judge has also allowed solatium at the rate of 30%, additional compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the deposit of the award amount. The award dated 29.2.2000 has been assailed by the appellants in the above appeals. 4. I have heard Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ansul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and gone through the record. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset has submitted that he confines his claim in the appeals only for claiming interest on solatium part of the compensation and he does not press remaining claim of the appellants in the appeals. He has relied Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211 for claiming interest on solatium. Mr. Ansul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned award and opposed any variation in the impugned award so as to increase the liability of the respondents. 5. In view of statement made by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants the point in controversy in each appeal is left very narrow. The question of payment of interest on solatium paid under the Act is now no more resintegra in view of law laid down in Sunder (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interest is payable on the solatium , therefore, appellants are …4… entitled to interest on solatium awarded by the learned District Judge and to this extent the impugned award requires modification. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA Nos. RFA Nos.322, 323,324 and 325 of the 2000 are allowed common award dated 29.2.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Land Reference Nos. No.6-A/4 of 1998, Land Reference. No.4-A/4 of 1998, Land Reference No.1-A/4 of 1998 and Land Reference No.5-A/4 of 1998 is modified to the limited extent and it is held that market value of the acquired land is Rs.84,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.35,000/- per bigha as awarded by the Collector. The appellants shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30%, additional compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 12% per annum from 7.11.1992 the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, to 4.1.1995 the date of award of the Collector besides interest on enhanced amount of compensation including solatium at the rate of 9% per annum from 7.11.1992 to 7.11.1993 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till deposit/payment. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 30, 2008 (sks) …5… 1.RFA No.322 of 2000 Narotam Ram ..Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ..Respondents 2. RFA No.323 of 2000 Smt.Nikki and & Anr. …. Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ..Respondents 3. RFA No.324 of 2000 Smt. Tulsi ……Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ..Respondents 4. RFA No.325 of 2000 Chet Ram and Ors. ……Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ..Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ For the appellant(s) : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate ( In all appeals ) For the respondents : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ( in all appeals) …6… HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. RFA No.323 of 2000 Date of Decision: 30.6.2008 Smt. Nikki and another. …..Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate . For the respondents : Mr.Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in RFA No.322 of 2000 titled Narotam Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 30, 2007 (sks) …7… HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. RFA No.324 of 2000 Date of Decision: 30.6.2008 Smt. Tulsi …..Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate . For the respondents : Mr.Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in RFA No.322 of 2000 titled Narotam Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 30, 2007 (sks) …8… HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. RFA No.325 of 2000 Date of Decision: 30.6.2008 Chet Ram and Ors. …..Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate . For the respondents : Mr.Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in RFA No.322 of 2000 titled Narotam Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge June 30, 2007 (sks)