IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 180 of 2003 alongwith Cross Objection No. 277 of 2003 and Civil Revision No. 56 of 2004 Date of Decision : December 24, 2010 RFA No. 180 of 2003 State of H. P. & Others …Appellants. Versus: Bahadur Singh …Respondent. Civil Revision No. 56 of 2004 Bahadur Singh …Petitioner. Versus: State of H. P. & Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No RFA No. 180 of 2003 For the appellants : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondent. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Civil Revision No. 56 of 2004 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). For public purpose, namely, widening of National Highway-22, amongst others petitioner’s land was acquired by the Government. Notification under Section 4 of the Land 2 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), was issued on 3.6.1998, which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 10.6.1998. Acquisition proceedings concluded. However respondent-claimant preferred a petition u/s 18 of the Act, claiming enhancement of the amount awarded by the Collector in terms of his award dated 29.8.2000. Collector awarded different rates for different categories of land. Compensation with respect to the trees on the acquired land was also awarded to the respondent. 2. Respondent’s Land Reference Petition No. 13-S/4 of 2001 titled as Bahadur Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. stands decided by the District Judge, Solan in terms of award dated 1.5.2003 and the amount awarded by the Collector stands enhanced to `. 3,97,726/- per bigha. District Judge has uniformly awarded this rate irrespective of classification of the land. Operative portion of the award reads as under:- “Consequent upon the aforesaid findings, the petitioners are held entitled to the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,97,726/- per bigha and I accordingly award the compensation on the aforesaid rate irrespective of the classification of the land as awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition. The petitioner shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value. Further the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taken of possession, i.e. 1.3.1972 till the expiry of the period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till its realization/deposit in the court in terms 3 as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder’s case supra. The respondents shall also be liable to pay the costs. Memo of costs be prepared and the file after completion be consigned to the record room.” 3. Respondent was aggrieved of the fact that compensation under section 23(1)(A) of the Act was not awarded. Consequently they moved an application for correction/ modification of the impugned award which stands rejected. Hence they have filed Civil Revision No. 56/2004 titled as Bahadur Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which is also listed today. 4. Against the impugned award State has filed the present appeal in which also the respondents have filed cross objections. 5. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, consequently both these cases are being disposed of by a common order. 6. In order to substantiate his claim, respondent has placed on record sale deed and agreement in relation to the property sold/agreed to be sold which is proximate to the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Court below, in my considered view, has rightly not considered the same basis for determining the compensation. There is no evidence of comparability. 7. It is a settled position of law that compensation for the land acquired is to be just, fair and reasonable. Relevant 4 date to be taken is the date of publication of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 8. Court below observed that since whole of the acquired land was to be put to use, therefore, irrespective of classification of the land, keeping in view the public purpose for which the land was acquired, compensation determined by the Collector for the best quality of land i.e. Kuhal category, needs to be awarded for all categories of acquired land irrespective of their classifications. There is no infirmity with the same. It is absolutely in consonance with the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Gulabi & Ors. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9. Therefore, no interference to this extent is required. 9. However, perusal of impugned award reveals that interest stands awarded w.e.f. 1.3.1972, date on which the possession is alleged to have been taken over by the State from the respondent. Now this fact is not substantiated on record. That apart, it is a settled position of law that relevant date for determining compensation under the Act has to be the date on which Notification under Section 4 of the Act is published. {Siddappa Vasappa Kuri & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2951}. 10. In the instant case, Notification was published in the Official Gazette on 10.6.1998. To this extent, Court below has erred in awarding interest. Impugned award is corrected and 5 modified to the extent that interest due and payable to the respondent shall be w.e.f. 10.6.1998 instead of 1.3.1972. It is clarified that respondent shall also be entitled for interest and all statutory payments, including additional compensation stipulated under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act w.e.f. 10.6.1998. 11. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal and revision petition which are partly allowed stands disposed of. Cross-objections No. 277/2003 In view of the disposal of the main mater, the cross- objections are dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 24, 2010. (rana)