HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No.: 139 of 2001 Reserved on: 20.11.2009 Decided on: 3.12.2009. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Mandi and another ………Appellants. Versus Balku Ram and another. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.S.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Surender P.Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, dated 31.7.2000, in reference petition No.2 of 1993. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land of the respondents was situated in Mohal Kapahi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The State of H.P. issued a notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’ for acquisition of the land for construction of Sundernagar- Lada road. The said notification was published in the __________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Rajpatra on 1.7.1989 and the same was also published in the newspapers. The land was acquired by the State. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into a Reference and vide his award dated 11.12.1992 awarded compensation as under: “1.Barani-I 0-6-19 bigha @Rs.3800.00 per bigha Rs.1320.50 2. Barani-II 0-9-17 bigha @Rs.3300.00 -do- Rs.4925.20 3. Banjar 0-7-2 bigha @Rs.800.00 -do- Rs.284.00 Kadim 4. Kharatar 2-3-0 bigha @Rs.700.00 -do- Rs.1505.00” & Gair Mumkin The land of the respondents measuring 0-7-15 bigha of different quality was acquired. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents filed application under Section 18 of ‘the Act’ for making a reference to the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents took up various grounds for enhancement of the compensation. The reference was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, vide the impugned award and compensation was granted to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.97,900/- per bigha. Being aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The first point taken by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation taking into consideration the sale deed, dated - 3 - 15.12.1989, which was executed after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4.8.1989. Thus, it was submitted that since this transaction was made after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon. It was also submitted that the increase of 10% granted by the learned trial Court on the value of the land was also not justified and, therefore, the market value assessed is liable to be reduced considerably. The second point taken by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants was that the interest has been wrongly awarded from the date of taking of possession, though the Hon’ble Apex Court has already laid down the law that the interest is not payable prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’ and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein. Coming to the first plea raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant State, a perusal of the record shows that the reference petition, from which the present appeal arises, alongwith other reference petitions, was consolidated with Reference Petition No.4 of 1993, titled Prem Singh versus Collector and common evidence has been recorded in all the cases. A further perusal of the record shows that the petitioners - 4 - had claimed that the market value, at the relevant time, was Rs.2.00 lac per bigha. One of the petitioners, namely, Nokhu Dass, who appeared as PW-1, had claimed that the market value of the land was Rs.4.00 lac per bigha. It had also come up in his evidence that the land was at a distance of only 1 km. from Bhojpur Bazar in Sundernagar. It had also come up in his statement that there is a High School, Dispensary, Veterinary Hospital, Post Office and some shops in their village. A perusal of the award passed by the learned trial Court shows that the learned trial Court had observed that the market value of the land in Kapahi Mohal has been rising consistently day by day. On the basis of sale deeds proved on the record, it was also observed that the price of the land in the year 1989 was Rs.89,000/- per bigha, which shot-up to Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 1996, as per sale deed Ext.PW-4/A. It is true that the sale deed Ext.PW-1/B is dated 15.12.1989 i.e. after about 4 months of the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’ on 4.8.1989, but the learned trial Court has also considered the question that the subsequent sale deeds show that the prices have been rising in this area and accordingly it was concluded that the price can be said to be Rs.97,900/- per bigha for the land in question. A perusal of the record shows that no evidence was led by the appellants to prove the market value of the land at the time of issuance of the notification since no copies of the sale deeds were placed on the record by the appellants. - 5 - The learned trial Court had to consider the sale deeds proved on record and keeping in view the evidence and the fact that these were the sale deeds produced in evidence and no evidence was led by the appellants, no infirmity could be pointed out in the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the market value of the acquired land can be said to be Rs.97,900/- per bigha. Therefore, the contention put forth by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant is repelled being devoid of any force. Coming to the question as to whether the interest was payable from the date of taking the possession or the date of award, the learned Assistant Advocate General had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, wherein their Lordships had considered the decision in Special Tehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes vs. M.A. Jabbar, (1995) 2 SCC 142, in which a view had been taken that the interest was payable from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of taking the possession, which date was prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Their Lordships had affirmed the decision in this case, which is by a larger Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges. The contrary view taken in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub- Division vs. Mathapathi Basavannewwa, (1995) 6 SCC 355 was over ruled. - 6 - Therefore, it follows from the above discussion that according to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the interest is payable from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not from the date of taking possession, which has been granted by the learned trial Court in the present case. The appeal is liable to be accepted accordingly and the interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% from the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award. The amount shall be calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector and paid to the respondents accordingly within a period of 3 months from today, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to get interest from the date of the judgment till payment also at the same rate. The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs. December 3, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.