----------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 337 of 2001. Judgment reserved on :19.5.2011. Date of decision : June 22, 2011. ___________________________________________________________________ Land Acquisition Collector-II and another.…… Appellants. Versus Vimal Gandhi and another. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?Yes. For the appellants : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2(a) to 2(d). Respondent No.4(d) deleted. None for respondents No.3, 4(a) to 4(c), 5 (a) & 5(b). Surinder Singh, J. The challenge in this appeal has been made by the appellants to the judgment/ award passed by the learned District Judge in Land Reference No.25-S/4 of 1992/90 on 29.4.1996, precisely on the ground that the learned Reference Court awarded the amount of compensation for 12 biswas of land of the appellants as against 6 - 2 - biswas of land, which was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in short ‘the Act’. 2. Heard and gone through the records of the case. 3. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present case can be stated thus. A notification dated 16.9.1988 was issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring 6 biswas of land in Khasra No.240 and 243 of the respondents, for the purpose of laying down the water pipe by the Irrigation & Public Health Department (I&PH), which was published on 24.6.1989. This land was intended to be acquired as per the provisions of the Act for the aforesaid public purpose. The award No.14/1988 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 23.10.1989. The respondents did not feel satisfied with the impugned award, as such preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act, for referring the matter to the civil Court for determination of the compensation. 4. After receipt of the reference, learned District Judge (Forest) proceeded to determine the same and on the conclusion of the evidence and - 3 - taking note of the evidence produced before it, enhanced the compensation @ `8,000/- per biswa for the land measuring 12 biswas together with statutory interest as against 6 biswas, which was initially notified under Section 4 of the Act while relying upon the statements of PW2 Shri B.R. Lakhanpal and Mangat Ram Kanungo, who had inspected the spot and reported that 12 biswas of land was actually utilised by the acquiring department, for laying down the pipe lines as per the calculation given in Ext.P6 whereas, 6 biswas i.e. 3 biswas each, denoted by Khasra Nos.240/1 and 243/1 was acquired. 5. The conciliation was also tried in the matter, but it failed as the appellants were not ready and wiling to arrive at a compromise, hence the matter finally heard. 6. Admittedly, vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act aforesaid, a part of two khasra numbers was so acquired, which was only 6 biswas. The provision of the Land Acquisition Act only applies to the land regarding which notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued and not to - 4 - the other land. A person not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector is entitled to pursue all his non-satisfied grievance under Section 18 of the Act before the civil Court. For the use and occupation of the land, apart from the land notified is not covered for determining the question in reference. For that, the aggrieved party has a civil remedy, therefore, the finding of the learned Reference Court to the effect that the department had acquired and utilised 12 biswas of land instead of 6 biswas notified under Section 4 of the Act and awarding of compensation over and above the land notified under Section 4 is wrong and illegal, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set-aside to the above extent. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the appeal. The respondents are held entitled for the enhanced compensation, as awarded by the learned Reference Court only for 6 biswas of land comprised of Khasra No.240/1 and 243/1, together with statutory interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was actually - 5 - notified and acquired and not for the un-notified land, which was allegedly occupied by the acquiring department in excess, for that the respondents are at liberty to seek any other remedy available to them under the law viz. by filing a suit for damages or possession. The appeal stands disposed of. 8. Parties are left to bear their own costs. (Surinder Singh ) Judge June 22, 2011. (Pds)