IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RFA.Nos. 181/2005 along with RFA Nos.182,183, 184,185,186,187, 188 and 261 of 2005, Date of Decision :10th January, 2008. 1.RFA.No.181 of 2005. Inder Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents. 2.RFA.No.182 of 2005. Amar Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents. 3.RFA.No.183 of 2005. Gian Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents. 4.RFA.No.184 of 2005. Vikram Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents 5.RFA.No.185 of 2005. Kumar Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents 6.RFA.No.186 of 2005. Vivek Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents 7.RFA.No.187 of 2005. Narayan Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents 8.RFA.No.188 of 2005. Suneharu Devi ..Appellant. 2 Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents 9..RFA.No.261 of 2005. Kartar Singh ..Appellant. Versus: LAC. And another. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellants: Mr.Vivek Thakur and Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocates. . For Respondents. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). CMP.Nos. 766,767,768,769,770, 771, 772, 773 and 774 of 2006. In terms of these applications, the certified copy of the award dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge in Land Reference Case No.22 of 2001 titled as Achhar Singh and others Vs. L.A.C. and another along with eight Land Reference is sought to be placed on record. It is an admitted case that the said award dated 16th March, 2006 arises out of the very same acquisition proceedings which are the subject matter of the present appeals and has attained finality as the State has accepted the award. Therefore, the same is taken on record and is being looked into for the purpose of deciding the present appeals. The present appeals, with the consent of the parties, are being decided at the stage of admission. These appeals arise out of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 the common award dated 28th February, 2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in the following Land Reference Petitions: 1. Land Ref.Pet. No. 12 of 2001, titled Inder Singh vs. L. A.C. 2. Land Ref.Pet.No.13 of 2001, titled Amar Singh vs. L.A.C. 3.Land Ref. Pet. No.14 of 2001, titled Gian Singh vs. L.A.C. 4.Land Ref. Pet. No. 15 of 2001, titled Vikram Singh vs. L.A.C. 5.Land Ref. Pet. No. 16 of 2001, titled Kumar Singh vs. L.A.C. 6. Land Ref. Pet. No. 17 of 2001, titled Vivek Singh Thakur vs. L.A.C. 7.Land Ref. Pet. No. 18 of 2001, titled Narain Singh Swami vs. L.A.C. 8.Land Ref.Pet. No.69 of 2001, titled Sunehru Devi vs. L.A.C. 9.Land Ref.Pet.No.70 of 2001, titled Kartar Singh & Others vs. L.A.C. The same are, therefore, decided by a common judgment. For the public purposes, the construction of Lethwin- Dharwara road in village Lahnjta, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, the land belonging to various land owners, including the present appellants was acquired vide notification dated 26th April, 1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The said notification was published in the official gazette on 20th May, 1995. The acquisition proceedings were concluded by passing of award No.22 of 1999 decided on 18th February, 1999. The admitted case of the parties is that the possession of the land in question was taken much prior to the publication of the notification. Be that as it may be, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation and interest thereon only from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 4 The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land and awarded compensation at different rates for different categories of land as under: Name of Tehsil. Variety of Land Rate Per Bigha: Ghumarwin. Anderli Aval. Rs.1,93,750-00 Anderli Doam Rs.1,65,625-00 Bahrili Aval. Rs. 78,125-00 Bahrili Doam Rs. 36,500-00 Banjar & Khadetar Rs. 18,750-00. Aggrieved by the same, various land owners preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants herein sought enhancement of the market value of the acquired land and claimed a sum of Rs.13,60,000/-. Considering the material on record, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the claimants herein had not been able to support their claim with any material or evidence on record and therefore in terms of the impugned award dated 28th February, 2005 dismissed the claim petition. Some bunch matters were however kept pending and were later on decided in terms of the award now taken on record. A perusal of the said award dated 16th March, 2006 passed in Land Reference Petition No. 22 of 2001 titled as Acchar Singh Vs. L.A.C. and the impugned award dated 28th February, 2005 would show that both the awards arise out of the same acquisition proceedings . The notification of acquisition under Section 4 of the Act and the Collector’s award is common. Lands acquired are contiguous 5 and are similarity having same potentiality. The land in question is fertile, irrigated and the appellants were having income from the same. However while determining the market value of the land, the District Judge in award dated 16th March, 2006 fixed the highest value determined by the Collector and uniformally applied the same regardless of the classification and category of the acquired land. In doing so, he has relied upon the ratio of law laid down in Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1992 S.C. 2298 and Smt.Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 H.P.9. It is an accepted position that the said award has attained finality and has been accepted as such by the State. A perusal of the award would show that the rate of compensation awarded for the best category of land in both the awards is the same. The acquired land has been used in its entirety for the construction of the road. In fact, the possession of the land was taken much prior to the issuance of the notification which was published in the official gazette on 20th May, 1995. Considering the fact that the lands in question were acquired by the same and similar notification and common award passed by the Collector, I see no reason as to why the appellants herein should be deprived of the equal compensation and be not given the benefit of the award dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, particularly when the same has been accepted by the State. For the aforesaid reasons it is held that the appellants herein shall be entitled for compensation at the market value of Rs.1,93,750/- per bigha which is the rate determined by the Land 6 Acquisition Collector in terms of his award dated 18th February, 1999 being the market value of the ‘Anderli Aval’ land. The appellants shall be entitled to the aforesaid amount for the entire acquired land irrespective of the category and classification. The appellants shall not be entitled for any compensation for the period between the date of possession and the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. But, the appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits and entitlement under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Act. The appellants’ compensation obviously has to be determined in terms of the ratio of law laid down in Sunder Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3516. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. January 10, 2008(R) 7