IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA No.185/2003 Reserved on: 10.7.2008 Decided on.:14.7.2008 Vakil Singh and others. …Appellants. Versus The Collector Beas Dam. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the appellants : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the award dated 20.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge –II, Kangra at Dharamshala in reference case No. 811/77. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Regular First Appeal are that the appellants had filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against award No. 14 dated 31.5.1971 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Beas Dam Project, Talwara. The learned Additional District Judge- II, Kangra at Dharamshala has framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the Land Acquisition Collector has not assessed the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner, as alleged? OPA. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, then to what extent? OPP. 3. Relief.” The learned Additional District Judge has recorded the following findings: “Issue No.1 Yes, Issue No.2 Yes, Relief : The petition is allowed per operative part of the order.” Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate had contended that the award dated 20 .12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not in accordance with the statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on 25.11.2002 and the same is required to be modified. The learned Additional Advocate General had supported the award dated 20.12.2002. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. It is evident from the award dated 20.12.2002 that the same is based on the statement made by the learned counsel appearing on 3 behalf of the parties before him. It will be apt at this stage to take note of the statement made by Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate on 25.11.2002: “Stated that as the reference has been decided in view of the Supreme Court judgment titled Union of India versus Shanti Devi, the present reference may be decided in accordance with that which has been reported in AIR 1983 SC 1190. Moreover, according to the new amending Land Acquisition Act 1984, interest @ 9% and @ 15% alongwith solatium may kindly be given.” The Collector in the present case has made the award on 31.5.1971. The reference petition was instituted under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1977. The same was decided on 20.12.2002. The Court is of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have passed the award by considering the statement of Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate dated 25.11.2002 in its entirety. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent had agreed with the statement made by Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. The learned Additional District Judge had only directed the Land Acquisition Collector to re-assess the market value of the acquired land in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Shanti Devi, AIR 1983 SC 1190, but has omitted to take note of second portion of the statement of Shri S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate dealing with the component of interest and solatium. This omission on the part of the Additional District Judge has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 4 The statement made by Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj was in accordance with law. The same ought to have been taken into consideration while making the award on 20.12.2002. In normal circumstances, this Court would have remanded the matter to be decided afresh by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala by taking into consideration the statement of Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj in its entirety, however, taking into consideration that the reference, in fact, was instituted in the year 1977 and the same was decided on 20.12.2002, to cut short the litigation and to do complete justice, the appropriate modification can be made in the award by this Court instead of remanding the matter. Consequently, the Regular First Appeal is allowed. The award dated 20.12.2002 is modified to the extent that the Land Acquisition Collector while re-assessing the market value of the acquired land in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Shanti Devi, AIR 1983 SC 1190, will also allow statutory interest and solatium in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), J. July 14, 2008 *Awasthi*