IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 56 of 1999 Judgment Reserved on:4.11.2009 Date of decision : 08.01.2010 RFA No. 42 of 1999 Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD,Kullu …Appellant Versus Ses Ram & others ….Respondents RFA No. 43 of 1999 Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD,Kullu …Appellant Versus Tikam Ram ….Respondent RFA No. 44 of 1999 Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD,Kullu …Appellant Versus Dalip Singh & others ….Respondents RFA No. 56 of 1999 Collector Land Acquisition HPPWD,Kullu …Appellant Versus Dile Ram & others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. RFA Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 56 of 1999 For the appellant: Shri R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: S/Shri Ajay Mohan Goel and Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocates. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Dev Darshan Sud, J. These appeals have been preferred by the State against the award made by the learned Reference Court enhancing compensation awarded to the claimants in all these appeals, which arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Reference Court. It is undisputed and admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as also the purpose of acquisition is also same. These appeals are, therefore, being decided by a common judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General challenges the correctness of award on the grounds that: (i) the Reference Court was incorrect in awarding interest from the date of taking over of possession. Under the provisions of the Act, interest can only be awarded from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (ii) basis on which the learned Court has based its assessment for the compensation is not correct and that sale deeds Ext.RA, Ext.RC and Ext.RE produced by the appellant have not been considered. Taking up the second submission first, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly rejected this evidence by holding that these sale deeds have merely been tendered without in any manner proving the quality of the land subject matter of sale or the fact that these lands are situated in or near the vicinity of the acquired land. It is now well settled that merely tendering sale deeds in evidence is not a correct way of proving the value of land in acquisition proceedings and what is required is to show that the land which is subject matter of acquisition and that of sale deeds is identical or same and its advantages/disadvantages are also same or similar. - 3 - Turning to the second point, the learned Reference Court on settled issue No. 6 holds that possession of land had already been taken much before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and as such, proceeded to grant interest from the date of taking possession. The learned Court is not correct in holding so. In LAC & another Vs. Avinder Singh, LAC & another vs. Jaswant Singh and LAC & another vs. Bimla Mahajan HLJ 2008 (HP) 891 following the decision of the Supreme Court, it has been held that the interest can be awarded only from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. “2. The basic grievance of the State is that the award includes within its ambit interest awarded to the claimants from the date of possession and not from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Learned Additional Advocate General submits that notification under Section 4 was issued subsequent to the taking over of the possession. She submits that in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002 (3) Shim L.C. 45), following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (2002) 1 SCC 142, no interest can be awarded for the period prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. She also places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002 1 SCC 142 and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. V. DDA and others (2004) 4 SCC 79, holding that the Act does not contemplate payment of any sum prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. - 4 - 3. The proposition of law as laid down in these three judgments cannot be disputed.” At the same time, this Court also notices and follows the judgment of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and Another vs. Hemanagouda, (2005) 12, SCC 443, stating that the claimants were entitled for compensation from the date of taking over of possession till notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. In these circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed. Interest payable under the Act shall be from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the following directions are issued:- (i) the appeal is remanded to the Reference Court i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu; (ii) On remand, the Reference Court will redetermine the compensation in accordance with the decision in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002(3) Shim.L.C. 45); Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142) and R.L. Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA and others (2004) 4 SCC 79) and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Hemanagouda and others (2005) 12 SCC 443. (iii) The claimants will be at liberty establish their claim for reimbursement or money/compensation for use of their property by the State without recourse to proceedings under the Act. For this purpose, the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that no other evidence except that which is necessary for determination of compensation for its use and occupation and deprivation by the State without recourse to law prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed. - 5 - (iv) The learned Court, while awarding compensation, shall follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 15th March, 2010. Needless to say that the Court shall proceed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, and shall endeavour to dispose it of not later than six months from the date when the parties first put in appearance before him. It is also clarified that evidence with respect to taking over of the possession will be allowed to be led and no other evidence regarding the value of land etc. as determined by the Reference Court in its judgment shall be allowed. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that no direction for determination of compensation can be made by this Court. This submission is rejected. It is not open to the State to appropriate the land of its citizens without recourse to law and refuse to pay just compensation, as laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and Another vs. Hemanagouda, (2005) 12, SCC 443. This submission requires to be rejected. Let record of this case be sent back to the Reference Court forthwith. January 08,2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge .