IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMOs No.681, 682, 683, 684 & 685 of 2009 Date of decision : May 27, 2010 1.CMPMO No.681/2009 Sunder Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus LAC and another …Respondents. 2.CMPMO No.682/2009 Surinder Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus LAC and another …Respondents. 3.CMPMO No.683/2009 Gulab Singh …Petitioner. Versus LAC and another …Respondents. 4.CMPMO No.684/2009 Dhan Singh and others …Petitioners. Versus LAC and another …Respondents. 5.CMPMO No.685/2009 Moti Ram …Petitioner. Versus LAC and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. (In all the petitions) For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. (In all the petitions). Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. By this judgment, five petitions, particulars whereof are given in the title of the judgment, are being Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… disposed of, as the controversy raised in all of them is the same. 3. Land of the petitioners, in all the five cases, had been utilized by the respondents-State, in the construction of a road, in the year 1982. However, notification for the acquisition of the land was issued in the year 1992. Compensation was assessed and paid by the Land Acquisition Collector. Petitioners were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. So they approached the Land Acquisition Collector, for making reference to the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. References were made accordingly. 4. Learned District Judge enhanced the compensation and ordered payment of interest, at the statutory rates, from the year of the taking over of the possession, i.e. from the year 1982, till the payment of compensation. 5. Appeals against the awards of the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, were filed by the State in this Court. This Court, while disposing of the appeals, held that the petitioners were entitled to interest, at the statutory rates, only from the date of the issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, or to say from the year 1992 and not from the year of taking over of possession, i.e. 1982. 6. No further appeal was filed in the matter. However, applications were moved by all the petitioners, …3… under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned District Judge, for payment of rent or use and occupation charges, in respect of the acquired property, for the period from the date of taking over of the possession to the date of the issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Those applications have been dismissed by the learned District Judge, with the finding that the matters having finally been disposed of by this Court, he cannot pass any order, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that may be the petitioners have the remedy to seek rent or use and occupation charges, by approaching the Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 48 of the Act. 7. Orders to the aforesaid effect passed by the learned District Judge have been assailed by means of the present petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. From a bare reading of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that rent or use and occupation charges can be claimed only when after the issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government decides not to acquire the property and withdraws the notification. It does not come into play when the property is acquired, pursuant to notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.L. Jain(D) by LRs …4… versus DDA and others, (2004) 4 SCC 79 submits that rent or use and occupation charges can be claimed even in a case of the present type. Submission is fallacious. What has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is that where possession of certain property has been taken over, prior to the publication of the notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property, to which the land owner is entitled, while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner, for the acquisition of the property. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act lends support to the aforesaid view. Hon’ble Supreme Court has not said that rent or use and occupation charges can be claimed, under Section 48 of the Act, in such a situation. Reference has been made to Section 48 of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court only to seek strength to their view that where the property of a person is used before the issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Act, he may be compensated for the use of such property. 11. In view of the abovestated position, all the petitions, referred to above, are dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for assessment and payment of rent/use and occupation charges of their property for the period form 1982 to 1992, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble …5… Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs versus DDA and others (supra). Issues regarding limitation, latches, delay, etc., if raised before the Land Acquisition Collector, shall also be dealt with by him. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. May 27, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J