IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA Nos. 336 of 2001, 193 and 194 of 2002. Date of decision December 4, 2009. 1. State of H.P. & another vs. Sh. Rameshwar Dass& others; 2. State of H.P. & another vs.Sh. Krishan Chand & others. 3. State of H.P. & another vs. Sh. Amar Parkash & another. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG. For the respondents Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they involve the same questions of law and fact and arise out of the same award and judgment of the Collector. The only point urged by the learned Advocate General is that the learned Reference Court was wrong in awarding interest from the date of taking possession and not from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which is now well settled law by the Supreme Court. In L.A.C. & another v. Avinder Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 891, following the decision of the Supreme Court, this Court held that interest can only be granted from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The award is accordingly modified and it is directed that the claimants- respondents shall be entitled to interest from the date of notification and not from the date of taking possession. Having modified the award, following the decision in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and another v. Hemanagouds and others , (2005) 12 SCC 443, the claimants cannot be left remediless. It is admitted before me and also adjudicated by the learned Reference Court which finds a challenge that the date of notification under Section 4 is 1.2.1993 and published in Rajpatra on 6.3.1993. The learned Reference Court also holds that the possession of the land was taken on 9.3.1985. This also finds support from the pleadings of the State as also the evidence before the Collector accepted in his award. In these circumstances, these appeals are disposed of and the following directions are issued: - 3 - (i) the appeals are remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla; (ii) On remand, the Reference Court will redetermine the compensation in accordance with the decision in Narotam Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 45); Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142) and R.L.Jain (D) by LRs. V. DDA and others (2004) 4 SCC 79) and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Hemangouda and others (2005) 12 SCC 443. (iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money/ compensation for use of their property by the State without recourse to proceedings under the Act. For this purpose, the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that no other evidence except that which is necessary for determination of compensation for use of the land and deprivation of its use by the claimants by the State prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act will be allowed; (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 18.12.2009. The Reference Court shall dispose of the matters before 31.3.2010. - 4 - The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith. December 4, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.