IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.11 of 2002 Date of Decision : August 28, 2008 S. E. and another …Appellants. Versus: Vasu Dev & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For respondents 1 to 4: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of the impugned Award dated 3.10.2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Solan, H. P. in Land Reference Petition No. 9-S/4 of 1999 titled as Vasu Dev & others Vs. S.E.,HPPWD & another. The claimants land comprising Khasra Nos. 151/137/ 1, measuring 1bigha, 9 biswas 12 biswancies, situated in village Bashol, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. was acquired for public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Shaktighat-Shamaghat- Road’ vide Notification dated 20.12.1995 issued under Section 4 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) (published in H.P. Rajpatra on 8.3.1997) and the Collector’s Award No.6 of 1998 dated 30.3.1999. The Collector awarded the compensation for different classifications of land at the following rates:- Class of Land Rate per Biswa Kuhal Awal Rs.8,692/- Kuhal Doyam Rs.6,966/- Bakhal Awal Rs.5,166/- Bakhal Doyam Rs.4,346/- Bakhal Soyam Rs.3,444/- Khadyatar Rs. 492/- Gair Mumkin Rs. 492/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a land reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming enhancement of the compensation. The Court below ignored the respective Sale Deeds placed on record by the parties but, however, relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in Gulabi v. State of H.P. (AIR 1998 H.P. 9), and fixed the market value at the highest rate awarded by the Collector in its Award, which was payable for the best category of land. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants was fixed at Rs.8,692/- per biswa. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation was also directed to be paid from the date of the possession, which in the present case is much prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 3 The State has filed an Appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and in any event no interest could have been directed to be awarded to the claimants from the date of the possession. The land owners have not filed any appeal or cross-objections in the matter. Even at the time of hearing, they have not sought any enhancement based on the Sale Deeds placed on record. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. In order to establish its claim, the claimants examined S/Shri Raj Pal (PW-1), Bal Ram (PW-2), Dhian Singh (PW-3), claimant Anand Parkash (PW-4) and proved on record the Sale Deeds Ext.PW-1/A, Ext.PW-1/B, Ext.PW-1/C & Ext.PW- 1/D. The State also examined its witnesses S/Shri Basant Ram (RW-1), Dharam Sarup (RW-2) and proved on record Sale Deed Mark X. In my view, the Court below has rightly not considered the Sale Deeds Ext.PW-1/A, Ext.PW-1/B, Ext.PW-1/C, Ext.PW-1/D and Mark X, for determining the market value payable to the land owners for the acquired land. Sale Deeds not only pertain to different villages but in my view there is no evidence to show the similarity between the acquired land and the land sold in the exemplar Sale Deeds. PW-4 has categorically deposed that the acquired land is close to the National Highway having all amenities and 4 facilities. In its close vicinity, there is a big residential school where the children of influential people are studying. It has also been proved that the area is being developed into a commercial hub. The potentiality of the acquired land being developed and put to commercial use is there. The acquired land is close to the place known as Shamghat which is being developed as an industrial area and at the time of acquisition, in the village where the acquired land is situated the prevalent rates were about 6 to 7 lacs per bigha. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land was to be utilized for the public purpose, namely, construction of road. The Division Bench of this Court in Gulabi (supra) has held that the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there is an overall trend in increase of prices and the value of the land under acquisition is to be assessed irrespective of its classification and nature ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter. The Court was dealing with the case where the land was acquired for the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of National Highway’. In Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008(2) SCC 568), the Apex Court has also held that where the entire land is to be utilized for the public purpose and no development work is required to be carried out, the 5 compensation awarded to the claimants has to be uniformly applied regardless of classification and category of the land. It is a settled law that while awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant Notification and the market value envisages the prices which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The Collector has awarded Rs.8,692/- per biswa for the best category of the land. The Court below has applied the same rate uniformly to the entire land regardless of its classification. I see no error in that. The potentiality of the land; its location and advantages have been proved on record. In so far as the payment of interest from the date of possession, which in the present case is much prior to the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings is concerned, there is obviously an error in awarding the same. The Apex Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (2002(1) SCC 142) has held that the date of possession, has to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act which in any case cannot be prior to the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4. In Narotam Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2002(3) SLC 45), the Full Bench of this Court has also held the same. 6 In this view of the matter, the Award is modified and it is directed that the claimants shall be entitled to interest only from the date of the publication of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the Collector’s Award, it is specifically stated that the possession was taken in the year 1968. As to whether the possession was taken in the year 1963 or on some other date, the trial Court could not conclusively decide. For the claim of damages, which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and for enforcing their remedies, the claimants are at liberty to take recourse to such remedies as would be available to them in accordance with law. The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of as such. CMP No. 807 of 2008 Learned counsel does not press this application at this stage to enable him to move a comprehensive application. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 28, 2008. (rana)