IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. : 348 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 4, 2009 Collector, Land Acquisition HPPWD, Kullu, H.P. & another. Appellants Versus Rajender Paul Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the appellants. For the respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In the present appeal the appellants have assailed the impugned award dated 4.10.2002 passed by the District Judge Kullu in Land Reference Petition No. 32 of 2001, titled as Rajender Paul versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Kullu and another awarding a sum of Rs.2,44,565/- plus Rs. 19,000/- to the claimant. For the public purpose namely widening of National Highway No. 21, the petitioner’s land situate in Phati Shilihar, Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu was acquired by the State. The Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compensation for the acquisition of the land was awarded to the claimants. However, with regard to the house constructed on the land a supplementary award No. 1/1994 dated 4.4.1994 was passed. In terms of the award the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 72,892/- as compensation. The acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) which was published in the Rajpatra on 6.5.1989. Being dissatisfied with the award the claimant filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties the court below framed the following issues: 1 Whether the compensation for house of the petition was inadequate, unreasonable, if so, what was the value of the house acquired at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2. Whether acquired building consisted of two shops out of which one was being run as Karyana shop by the petitioner, if so, to what effect? OPP 3. Whether due to acquisition petitioner was forced to change his business to another premises and consequently suffered loss of business, if so, to what extent and effect? OPP 4. Whether petitioner was not granted benefit under section 23(1/A) of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 5. Whether no interest on solatium has been paid to the petitioner? OPP 3 Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties and based on the material on record the court below decided the Land Reference Petition by holding that the compensation awarded by the Collector was less than the actual cost/market value and as such compensation was enhanced from Rs. 72,892/- to Rs. 2,44,565/- plus Rs. 19,000/-. Interest was directed to be paid from the date of notification or possession which ever was earlier. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. has assailed the impugned award on the grounds that the compensation awarded is on the much higher side and in any event keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sinddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (2002) 1 SCC 142 and Lila Ghosh versus State of West Bengal, (2004) 9 SCC 337, interest prior to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act could not have been awarded even if the possession of the land has been taken prior to the said date. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent, however, has supported the impugned award for the reasons set out therein. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In order to prove its case the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and an expert Shri Rajiv Kumar (PW-2). 4 In rebuttal the respondents examined Shri Goverdhan (RW-1) and Shri Peeyush Sharma (RW-2). The assessment report being Ext.RW2/A to Ext.RW2/D, duly exhibited by RW-2, in my considered view cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired house. RW-2 has specifically stated that the report Ext. RW2/B does not bear his signatures nor had he prepared the same. He is not even aware as to on which date the said documents were prepared and by whom. Therefore the evidence led by the claimant needs to be determined. PW/1 has categorically deposed that the constructed house was a three storeyed structure consisting of four rooms with one kitchen, bath room latrine and verandah on the ground floor, two shops, two rooms, one courtyard on the first floor and two rooms with varandah on the second floor. He was running a karyana shop in the said building and due to acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector, he had to close down the business, as a result, he had to shift his business to some other place, thereby, suffering huge loss of business and goodwill. PW-2 is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He has proved on record the valuation/assessment report Ext.PW2/A to Ext.PW2/H prepared by him. In terms of the said report the valuation of the structure comes to Rs. 6,07,980/-. But, however, careful scrutiny of the same would reveal that he has taken into account the extra expenditure which may have been incurred for constructing the 5 house. The court below has discarded the same and arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,44,565/- which was the actual existing cost of the acquired super structure at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings. I see no infirmity in the same. The conclusion arrived at is based on the material on record which is just and proper. The compensation awarded is reasonable hence the findings returned by the court below on Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are upheld. The claimant’s business suffered and Rs. 19,000/- was rightly awarded for the same. With regard to the interest the court below has directed as under: “(ii) Additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the award of the Collector, Land Acquisition or the date of taking possession of the acquired properties, whichever is earlier.” Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sinddappa Vasappa Kuri (supra) and Lila Ghosh (supra), it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest only from the date of publication of the notification in the Rajpatra i.e. 6.5.1989. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal stands disposed of as such. (Sanjay Karol), Judge March 4, 2009 (PK)