IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 168 of 1999 alongwith RFA No.133 of 2000 and RFA No. 170 of 1999 Reserved on: 29.03.2010 Date of decision: 01.04.2010 1. RFA No. 168 of 1999 Collector, Land Acquisition & another … Appellants Versus Kirpal Chand @ Kripa Chand ... Respondent 2. RFA No. 133 of 2000 Collector, Land Acquisition & another … Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Katrain … Respondent 3. RFA No. 170 of 1999 Collector, Land Acquisition & another … Appellants Versus Charan Dass ... Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. (In all the cases) For the respondent: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. (In all the cases. V.K. Ahuja, J. : This judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals titled above arising out of the common judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, in Reference No. 23/1994, decided on 15.12.1997. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land measuring 10-8-14 bighas was acquired by the State Government in Phati Katrain, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil and District Kullu, for public purposes, that is, for construction of Katrain- Chhani road. Notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4.10.1988 and the proceedings were completed by the Collector under the provisions of the Act. The Collector entered into Reference and the rates granted for different varieties of land are as under: (a) Bagicha Bathal: Rs. 28,403.00 per bigha (b) Bathal Abal: Rs. 28,403.50 per bigha © Bathal Dom: Rs. 28,403.00 per bigha (d) Bathal Som: Rs.21,586.66 per bigha (e) Banjar Kadim: Rs. 1704.21 P. per bigha A Reference Petition was filed under Section 18 of the Act in the Court of learned District Judge, who tried petition and on conclusion of the case, the learned trial Court granted enhanced compensation of land as under:- (a) Bagicha Bathal: Rs. 60,000/- per bigha (b) Bathal Abal: Rs. 60,000/- per bigha © Bathal Dom: Rs. 60,000/- per bigha (d) Bathal Som: Rs. 45,000/- per bigha (e) Banjar Kadim: Rs. 30,000/- per bigha Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Court of learned District Judge, appellants/State have filed the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the grounds of appeal, it is clear that general allegations have been made in the ground of appeal that the compensation awarded was not proper and it was wrongly enhanced by placing reliance upon some documents including 3 transactions after issuance of thee notification under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate General had conceded that the Collector had granted the compensation as granted by the learned trial Court in other cases pertaining to the same area, that is, in respect of the land acquired in Phati Katrain, which land was acquired as per the observations made by the learned trial Court for Agriculture Research Institute situated in Phati Katrain. The notification in that case was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 13.12.1989. The learned trial Court in coming to this finding had not relied upon the sale transactions, but has relied upon the compensation awarded by the Collector for the land acquired in the same area. The award of the Collector is in the nature of offer made by the State Government and cannot be reduced. There is nothing on record to show that any challenge was made by the State Government on the amount given by the Collector for the land acquired in the same area. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Collector in other case of the same area was relied upon and compensation was accordingly enhanced as detailed above. Thus, once the State Government has himself has offered this amount through the Collector, the amount is not liable to be reduced and there is no substance in any such arguments raised on behalf of the State Government. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court can be said to be just and reasonable, which calls for no interference by this Court. Another plea was raised during the course of arguments that in view of the latest law laid down by the Apex 4 Court, the interest has to be awarded from the date of issuance of notification and not from the date of the taking of possession. It was submitted that these judgments have been passed now and oral prayer made in this regard can be considered by this Court. Reliance can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, in which such findings were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State/appellants are accepted to this extent that the respondents shall be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned trial Court from the date of the issuance of the notification and not from the date of taking possession. However, it is clarified that in case any amount has been disbursed to the respondent(s), it shall not be realized from the respondent(s). However, in case, the amount is lying in deposit and has not been paid to the respondent(s), the Land Acquisition Collector shall make the calculations and shall take steps for disbursement of the same to the respondent(s) within four months from today. In view of the above, all the three appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this judgment be placed on the files of RFA No. 133 of 2000 and RFA No. 170 of 1999. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, all the pending Misc. Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 01, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5